Legal News

The Public Office ( Accountability) Bill The Public Office ( Accountability) Bill, brought before Parliament by Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy on 15 September 2025, would impose a statutory obligation on public officials to co-operate candidly and comprehensively with inquests and inquiries into fatal incidents and major scandals. Its measures would place a duty on public bodies to be truthful, requiring officials to hand over information and evidence even where doing so may not serve their own interests. The Bill further creates criminal liability for officials who do not conduct themselves with honesty and integrity at all times, with prosecutions for 'especially egregious breaches' carrying sentences of up to two years in prison. Yet lawyers caution that uncertainties remain over how these provisions will operate in practice. Authorities must step forward with information, but they will still need to examine material,...

In this issue: Public procurement Judicial review Brexit highlights Brexit SIs Post- Brexit transition guidance Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights State accountability and liability Information law Other public law news New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Public procurement Procurement Act 2023—key developments since the ‘go live’ From 24 February 2025, the principal provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 ( PA 2023) took effect. Procurements started on or after that date are subject to PA 2023. Procurements initiated beforehand remain under the prior regime, namely the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 ( SI 2015/102), the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 ( SI 2016/274), the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 ( SI 2016/273), and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 ( SI 2011/1848). Our analysis sets out key...

ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police [2025] EWHC 1964 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? ALK yields two concrete takeaways for practitioners and highlights two points for practice. First, Bourne J reaffirms the stringent threshold for the necessity of arrest under PACE 1984, s 24: courts will, among other matters, expect proof that arresting officers actively considered less intrusive measures, including whether they turned their minds to alternatives at the time. That inquiry can be determinative in itself. Engaging directly with the Parker Questions, Notes 2F and 2G to Code G, and surveying the authorities, the judgment confirms that assessing alternatives is no mere formality, but a real requirement. Practitioners should therefore ensure the evidence shows an officer’s consideration of alternatives if arrest is to be justified, whilst claimants should scrutinise any failure to do so. ...

R (on the application of Anaesthetists United Ltd and others) v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 2270 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The practical consequences are these: Physician associates (‘ PA’) and Anaesthesia Associates (‘ AA’) will not be bound by GMC-imposed national limits on practice. The Royal Colleges will issue additional guidance on Associates’ scope of practice, and employers, via local clinical governance, will ensure Associates are practising safely. With the medical model adopted for Associates, those involved in professional discipline can expect a fitness to practise framework the same as, or closely akin to, that which applies to doctors......

As previously noted, the PA 2023 go-live has activated the core elements of the new UK public procurement framework for covered procurements. This encompasses public contracts awarded by central government, local authorities and other public sector bodies for the acquisition of goods, services and works above the relevant financial thresholds. This piece follows our earlier coverage of the PA 2023 go-live—see News Analysis: Procurement Act 2023 ‘go live’—what happens next? For additional background, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023— PA 2023. Key legislation Subject to the applicable savings and transitional provisions, PA 2023 repealed and replaced the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 ( PCR 2015), SI 2015/102; the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 ( UCR 2016), SI 2016/274; the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 ( CCR 2016), SI 2016/273; and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 ( DSPCR 2011), SI...

Brexit highlights In this issue: Brexit SI Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid Information law State security and intelligence Other public law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information UK- EU relations— Government responds to Business and Trade Committee report The government has issued its reply to the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee’s Sixth Special Report of Session 2024–25, ‘ How to strengthen UK- EU relations: Policy Priorities for the Summit’. It sets out outcomes from the May 2025 UK- EU Summit, including a new UK- EU Security and Defence Partnership to deepen defence industrial co-operation and respond to hybrid threats and weaknesses in critical infrastructure. The response also confirms agreement on Sanitary and...

R (on the application of Andrew Rickards) v East Hertfordshire District Council [2025] EWHC 2278 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? For Part 6 agricultural prior approvals, the ruling clarifies that although the GPDO ( SI 2015/596) grants permission in principle, authorities must still reach—and evidence in the case officer’s report—a targeted assessment of implementation, expressly addressing effects on designated assets, including: ancient woodland, where refusal is the norm absent wholly exceptional justification; and listed buildings, where great weight attaches to conservation, including their setting. Silence is unlikely to be cured by a charitable reading on review and risks being quashed. Declarations of unit size backed by a planning statement can suffice without disproportionate enquiries or a site visit, yet applicants should proactively grapple with nearby constraints, and the GPDO site-notice duty must be strictly...

R (on the application of Chidswell Action Group) v Kirklees Council [2025] EWHC 2256 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The High Court confirmed that, to satisfy article 40(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning ( Development Management Procedure) ( England) Order 2015, SI 2015/595 (2015 DMPO), any section 106 agreement must appear on the planning register before the authority issues the decision notice. Uploading it later the same day, or only after the permission is granted, will not do; publication has to be early enough to give objectors and other interested persons a genuine window to provide informed representations. The court emphasised that keeping the draft back while talks continued produced a serious transparency deficit, all the more so where biodiversity protections lay at the heart of the committee’s resolution. The judgment aligns with the Court of Appeal’s ruling in...

In this issue: Brexit highlights Post- Brexit transition guidance Constitutional and administrative law Equality and human rights Judicial review Public procurement Information law Lex Talk®Public Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers New Q& As Useful information Brexit highlights Understanding the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 and what comes next The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 ( PRMA 2025) initiates the reform of the UK’s product safety regime. Kate Corby, partner, and Lauren Webb, trainee solicitor, at Baker Mc Kenzie, explore the aims, context, and principal provisions of PRMA 2025, together with what is expected to follow next. See News Analysis: Understanding the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 and what comes next. UK– EU TCA— Government issues its second implementation report The Cabinet Office has released its second implementation report on the UK‑ EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement ( TCA), spanning key developments from April 2023 to...

Lifestyle Equities CV and another company v Sportsdirect. Com Retail Ltd and other companies [2025] EWHC 1417 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Since the TMA 1994 arrived, advisers have urged clients to record trade mark licences, yet that advice is often ignored. This High Court ruling returns the point to centre stage, offering sharper guidance on elements of the registration regime. At its core sits judicial discretion across the framework. The court firmly held that a non‑exclusive licensee cannot sue for infringement without the proprietor’s consent; however, the licence need not be recorded for the licensee’s losses to be taken into account during a damages enquiry. Registering the licence belatedly, including after proceedings have begun, can also be acceptable. Nonetheless, whether and how the court credits such timing sits squarely within its discretion. The trade‑off for such...

In this issue: Judicial review Equality and human rights Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid Information law Brexit SI Post- Brexit transition guidance Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Judicial review Administrative Court finds detention unlawful, orders accommodation to secure claimant's release— R ( BRO) v Home Secretary In R ( BRO) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2231 ( Admin), the Administrative Court carefully considered the claimant’s application for interim relief compelling the Secretary of State to release him forthwith from immigration detention and secure suitable accommodation for him under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Permission for judicial review was granted on four of the five pleaded grounds, while a bid to amend and add a sixth ground was refused. The court also made an interim order directing the defendant to arrange section 95...

What is the purpose of PRMA 2025? PRMA 2025 obtained Royal Assent on 21 July 2025 and, apart from PRMA 2025, s 11(1) and (3), took effect that same day. As enabling legislation, it empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to manage a wide spectrum of product safety risks and associated matters. On 22 July 2025, the Office of Product Safety and Standards (‘ OPSS’) issued a companion Code of Conduct that explains how government will exercise the powers granted under PRMA 2025. Why has PRMA 2025 been introduced? For years the UK’s product safety regime was shaped strongly by EU legislation. In the wake of Brexit, there was an increasing need for a distinct UK framework capable of evolving independently. At the same time, new hazards have appeared that the previous laws were not designed to deal with, including unsafe goods sold via online...

R (on the application of Associated Petroleum Terminals ( Immingham) Ltd and Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport ( Harbour Master for the River Humber, intervening) [2025] EWHC 1992 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This case addresses environmental impact assessments ( EIAs) and the relevance of the Gateshead principle to DCO decision making. It does not establish new law but reinforces established tenets within the EIA regime, which will interest those involved in nationally significant infrastructure projects. The key points reaffirmed were: the adequacy of an ES is a matter for the decision maker, who applies their own judgment to its suitability; the court stressed it will not intervene in such evaluative judgments save in a case of Wednesbury unreasonableness an ES should include information ‘reasonably required for reaching reasoned conclusions on the...

In this issue: Brexit highlights Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Public procurement Information law Other public law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit highlights Pre-settled status and equal treatment under Withdrawal Agreement ( Fertré v VWHDC) The Court of Appeal has made clear that EU nationals with Pre- Settled Status are not, by that status alone, entitled to housing assistance. Article 23(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement affords equal treatment to Union and British citizens who are resident in the host state on the basis of that Agreement. The court determined that this safeguard applies only to those with directly enforceable rights under the Agreement—i.e. individuals who satisfy its specified conditions—and not to everyone holding Pre- Settled Status, which is a broader...

Diplomatic assistance for Gazan clients and rationality review ( R ( BEL & others) v SSFCDO) R (on the application of BEL BEB BCC BEC BKJ (by her litigation friend BSJ) BDM (by his litigation friend BSJ) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWHC 1970 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The real-world impact is confined to a narrow group of Gazan clients. The ratio establishes that individuals who fall outside the FCDO’s Extended Eligibility Criteria ( EEC) can still be afforded diplomatic assistance by the FCDO to leave Gaza, provided they hold Article 8 Entry Clearance ( EC) for the UK. The FCDO already undertakes to assist a defined set of non‑ British nationals in Gaza where they meet the EEC. The EEC applies to those who: have a...

R ( Tortoise Media Ltd) v Conservative and Unionist Party ( Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 673 What are the practical implications of this case? The implications of this ruling are weighty in relation to (i) judicial oversight of unincorporated associations, notably political parties, and (ii) the breadth of access-to-information entitlements demanded by Article 10 ECHR. On the first issue, concerning how courts examine political parties, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the High Court’s non‑interventionist stance. At both the oral permission hearing and before the Court of Appeal, arguments were advanced by Tortoise Media and the Conservative Party about whether the individual chosen to lead the Conservative Party would, as a matter of course, become Prime Minister. That point mattered because the tighter the connection between the Party and the Government, the more persuasive the contention became that the Party was...

R ( Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2013 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? Grasping the effect of this judgment will assist practitioners advising clients on challenges to proscription decisions, particularly where the defendant advances an objection which, if resolved in the defendant’s favour, would be fatal to the claim. Such a contention should therefore be determined as a preliminary issue. In that context, the court will also consider whether the issue is liable to arise in other matters, and thus its broader significance. The court remarked that, although nothing prevents an organisation from seeking de-proscription soon after it is first proscribed, the original proscription decision is temporally distinct from a decision refusing a de-proscription application. Once a de-proscription application is lodged, the SSHD has 90 days to determine it. During that period, and then while any...

HMCTS insisted it acted swiftly on a technical bug which affected documents on its digital platform, adding that it did not change the outcome of any cases. An HMCTS spokesperson said an internal review found no indication that the technical problems altered any case outcomes. The agency was answering a BBC report that accused it of a cover‑up, after a leaked document suggested HMCTS failed to address an IT fault that led to case evidence going missing, being overwritten, or apparently disappearing. The BBC further claimed that judges in the civil, family and tribunal courts reached decisions with incomplete material as a consequence. Publication of the findings led the Bar Council to demand......

The Bar Council has called for an 'urgent and comprehensive' probe into software errors that might have affected the outcome of cases, which were revealed by a leaked HM Courts and Tribunals Service ( HMCTS) report. The BBC initially revealed the claims. According to the broadcaster, HMCTS conducted an internal inquiry, analysing a three-month sample of Social Security and Child Support Tribunal cases after software faults were uncovered, despite signs the flaw might have been present for years. Barbara Mills KC, who chairs the Bar Council, said they were alarmed at reports that the bug could have produced miscarriages of justice. She urged a swift and thorough investigation to determine any effect on case outcomes, and in particular whether emergency child protection cases have been affected. She added that this is the latest in a string of problems with the courts’ IT systems, which appear to...

In this issue Equality and human rights Judicial review Information law International law Other public law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Equality and human rights Supreme Court rules on first Russia sanctions challenge ( Shvidler v Foreign Secretary) The Supreme Court concluded, by a 4–1 majority, that the sanctions applied by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to Mr Shvidler, and, unanimously, that the actions taken by the Secretary of State for Transport against the yacht M/ Y Phi owned by Dalston Projects, introduced immediately after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, were proportionate and lawful notwithstanding the recognised impact on the appellants’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In a robust dissent, Lord Leggatt criticised the majority’s stance in Mr Shvidler’s appeal, holding that the measures against him, as a UK national, were...