Legal News

At the EAT, Judge Mary Stacey accepted several submissions advanced by Tesco in its protracted battle over an equal pay claim affecting 55,000 employees. The appeal concerned a demanding evidence-gathering exercise in which the tribunal had to determine whether two roles were comparable and what proof was adequate to support that conclusion. The EAT judge sided with Tesco and found that the Employment Tribunal ( ET) had fallen into a number of errors when assessing how to compare the roles of female shop staff with those of better-paid men working in distribution centres. The men operated as the comparators in the case. One such mistake, the EAT said, was the ET’s decision to exclude certain performance targets from the assessment of job value on the basis that they were ‘unreasonable’. However, Stacey J held that it is not for an ET to rule on the...

The High Court found that Kevin-gerald Stanford, previously Kevin Gerald Stanford, had persisted in asserting that the share sale agreement for a fashion label was void on the basis of fraudulent inducement, thereby breaching a court order. The finding concerned his insistence that he had been fraudulently induced to sign it. HHJ Paul Matthews stated he was satisfied, to the criminal standard of proof, that Mr Stanford violated the order by reviving the fraud allegations in a January letter and in a later paper sent to a division of private equity house Lion Capital. He explained that these amounted to clear statements that, due to the alleged fraud, the bank never acquired good title to the respondent’s shares and that they therefore still belong to him. Yet those same shares were subsequently sold by the bank to the applicant, meaning the...

Lawyers for three unnamed individuals and the Good Law Project contended that elements of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s ( EHRC) guidance on which workplace toilets trans people may access are unlawful. Alex Goodman KC argued that, under workplace regulations on the provision of single-sex toilets, the terms men and women must be read as encompassing trans men and trans women. In a pre-action letter, the not-for-profit group and the individuals—a transgender woman, a transgender man and an intersex woman—stated in May that they intended to bring a legal challenge to the EHRC’s advice on using lavatories at work. They maintained that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 does not extend to legislation governing the use of lavatories, which contains no definition of ‘man’ or ‘woman’. The group is seeking permission from Judge Jonathan Swift to pursue judicial review to...

D. E. L. T. A. Merseyside Ltd and another v Uber Britannia Ltd [2025] UKSC 31 Uber’s business model has faced a series of legal challenges. In R ( United Trade Action Group Ltd) v Transport for London [2021] EWHC 3290 ( Admin) (proceedings in which Uber London Ltd was a party), the High Court declared that the Private Vehicles ( London) Act 1998 renders it unlawful for any operator of private hire vehicles in London to accept a booking unless, acting as principal, it enters into a contract of hire to provide the passenger with the journey that is the subject of the booking under that Act accordingly......

Lowe v The Governors of Sutton’s Hospital In Charterhouse [2025] EWCA Civ 857 What are the practical implications of this case? The tenancy deposit regime is not elegantly drafted and has prompted a wave of technical litigation. This judgment offers useful clarity on how courts approach imperfect landlord compliance: A prescribed information certificate containing an inaccuracy should be interpreted as any statutory notice. If a reasonable recipient would grasp the correct details from it, the legislative requirements are treated as satisfied. The absence of a signature on the prescribed information certificate did not invalidate it. Here, the certificate was sent with a covering letter signed by the landlord’s agent; read together, the latter authenticated the former for the purposes of the statutory scheme. What was the background? In January 2010, C entered a contractual fixed-term tenancy of a residential flat within the...

Kieran Bourne & Tunluk Ltd v Tunaru and others [2025] EWHC 1762 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision stands out as the first reported occasion on which a court has found a director liable for fraudulent trading arising during the COVID‑19 pandemic, encompassing both requests for government‑backed Bounce Back Loans and claims for furlough payments under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme ( CJRS). Regarding the Bounce Back Loans, the court concluded it could determine actual dishonesty on the director’s part without cross‑examining him, because he had been barred from adducing any evidence following breach of an ‘unless’ order. It further ruled that the explanations advanced in the Defence and in pre‑action correspondence were undermined by the contemporaneous records and documents that were produced, with the result that a finding of the requisite dishonesty was possible on the...

The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology was ultimately still unable to convince High Court Judge Jonathan Richards to bar the performers— Mark Harper, Milo Deering, Kudisan Kai and Antonio Sol—from serving as representative claimants. He did, however, also agree to prevent two US entertainment unions from bringing proceedings on their members’ behalf. Judge Richards firmly dismissed the government’s contention that the proposed representatives may lack the 'same interest' as the class they seek to represent—a prerequisite under the UK Civil Procedure Rules. He further found there was 'no objectionable lack of clarity' in how the class was defined. The government did establish that, at present, there is 'no proposal' for calculating each individual performer’s loss if the musicians succeed. Even so, Judge Richards chose to allow the claimants a genuine opportunity to grapple with those...

Through an executive order, Trump confirmed that the tariffs unveiled on 31 July 2025 will commence for most exported products at 12:01 am Washington, DC, on 7 August 2025. Shipments loaded onto ocean-going vessels before that moment and landing in the US by 5 October 2025 will not fall under the new charges, he said. A fact sheet issued with the order described the move as ‘decisive action’ that resets ‘decades of failed trade policy’. The steepest levies will apply to Syria, assigned a 41% rate, while Laos and Myanmar will each face 40%, the order specifies. South Africa, Libya, Bosnia and Algeria are all set at 30%. By contrast, Brazil, the Falkland Islands and the UK are slated for 10%, the lowest rate on the president’s list. Trump added that several of the listed nations have already agreed to, or are close to...

FDI High Court dismisses judicial review challenge to FTDI divestment order made under the NSIA On 25 July 2025, the High Court delivered its judgment in FTDI Holding Limited, R (on application of) v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Cabinet Office, a judicial review brought by FTDI Holding Limited ( FTDIHL) challenging a divestment order made under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 ( NSIA). The government’s order required the disposal of an 80.2% stake in Future Technology Devices International Limited ( FTDI). The Court concluded the order was lawfully made, proportionate, and consistent with FTDIHL’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR). Although the Court found non-compliance with the statutory duty to provide reasons in the final order, it determined that this shortcoming did not invalidate the...

Building safety; statutory construction; retrospectivity; exercise of discretion by FTT; meaning of ‘just and equitable’ ( Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership & Others) Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership and other companies ( Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 846 What are the practical implications of this case? This is the first appellate ruling on RCOs and confirms the wide scope of matters the tribunal may weigh when using its discretion to make an order. There are several practical lessons for practitioners. In particular: first, the exposure to unknown and potential no‑fault‑based liabilities. It is now clear RCOs can be made for defects originating as long ago as 1992. A change in beneficial ownership of a developer, or of a company associated with a developer, will not absolve those companies from...

What are the practical implications of this case? The judicial review brought by Siderise, a maker and supplier of passive fire solutions, invited the court to scrutinise the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea’s decision to exclude Siderise as a supplier and to block its products. At this stage, the court’s role was confined to deciding whether permission for a full judicial review should be granted, and thus only whether there was an arguable case. The High Court’s May 2025 decision offers a useful pointer to how permission applications of this sort are likely to be approached. The court addressed whether the council had complied with its policies, whether it could lawfully exclude bidders under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 ( PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, and whether a limitation issue arose. The case matters not only for those involved in judicial review, who...

Original news Mr N ( CAS-97668- M6M1) —18 March 2025 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman dismissed a grievance concerning discretionary pension uplifts. Under the Scheme’s provisions, a pre‑1997 pension could be increased by the trustee, but only with the employer’s agreement. The employer declined to consent, pointing to the Scheme’s funding position. Without that approval, the trustee could not grant an increase. As the employer had followed an appropriate procedure when reaching its conclusion, the Pensions Ombudsman would not overturn that outcome. This matter highlights the significance of proper process in any decision‑making. What were the facts? Mr N was a pensioner member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Staff Pension Scheme (the Scheme)......

The consultation The Health and Safety Executive ( HSE) — the authority responsible, within its health and safety remit, for regulating chemicals in the UK — has released a consultation paper on chemicals policy. It concentrates on three key strands: the regulation of biocides the classification, labelling and packaging ( CLP) of chemicals the export and import of hazardous chemicals, including prior informed consent ( PIC) The background The consultation is largely a consequence of Brexit. For instance, before the UK’s departure, the European Chemicals Agency ( ECHA) handled approvals for biocidal products on the EU single market through the EU Biocidal Products Regulation ( Regulation ( EU) 528/2012), which sets rules for marketing and using biocides across Europe. Since leaving the European Union, this responsibility sits with HSE for Great Britain (not the whole UK, as Northern Ireland continues to apply certain EU...

The opinion is landmark. It bears far-reaching consequences for the evolution of international law, the corpus of international climate change law and related litigation, and for controversies determined under international investment treaties. I. UNFCCC: Article 4(2) is binding and interrelated to Article 2 The court records that Annex 1 [developed] countries are subject to a binding legal duty to implement climate measures that reduce GHG emissions. This amounts to an obligation of result. Equally, one cannot conclude that an obligation of result—such as the duty to adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change—is satisfied simply by adopting some policies and taking related steps. Compliance requires that the policies adopted and measures taken are capable of achieving the stipulated aim. Put differently, adopting a policy and taking related measures as a box-ticking exercise does not suffice to...

Mergers The Commission has approved the following: the joint control acquisition of PTH No 1 Pty Ltd by Qube Holdings Limited, Brookfield Corporation, and Qatar Holding ( M.12032), following a phase I review—see also Midday Express the acquisition of sole control of Groupe Mécanique Découpage S. A. by DSBJ PTE......

Original news Mr T ( CAS-45233- Y4G1)—17 March 2025 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman upheld a complaint concerning incorrect records and a lag in putting them right within the Scheme. The pension scheme took an exceptionally lengthy period to correct an erroneous record. The Pensions Ombudsman concluded this amounted to maladministration and, because of the drawn‑out delay, a £3,000 award was justified to acknowledge the exceptional distress and inconvenience experienced. This decision serves as a reminder that, in exceptional cases, the Pensions Ombudsman can grant awards exceeding £2,000 for exceptional distress and inconvenience, underscoring its willingness to recognise such impact. What were the facts? Mr T was a member of the Fee Paid Judicial Pension Scheme (the Scheme). Mr T received a benefit statement from the Scheme in question......

Imperium Trustees ( Jersey) Ltd v Jersey Competent Authority and another ( Jersey) [2025] UKPC 28 What are the practical implications of this case? In recent years, tax transparency has dominated internationally, with information exchange giving authorities enhanced sight of how entities operate beyond their own borders, increasing cross-border visibility of their activities in other jurisdictions. That said, information notices under exchange-of-information regimes are constrained by safeguards akin to those that apply at home, so the same protections arise as for purely domestic notices. Any request must be pursued using local information-gathering powers, and only to the extent the requesting state itself could demand the material, going no further than that standard permits. In practice, disputes usually turn on whether the authority genuinely needs the information to examine a taxpayer’s position; in Imperium Trustees, the substantive judicial review will assess if the material sought was...

Regulatory specialists caution that numerous financial firms are ill-equipped for the fallout of altered requirements for senior leaders—the FCA’s plan to extend how long criminal record checks remain valid before appointments could make it easier for wrongdoers to slip into boardroom ranks without timely scrutiny or deterrence measures. The ‘failure to prevent fraud’ offence in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 ( ECCTA 2023) targets fraud by employees undertaken to advantage the business in practice. Under this provision, only the corporate entity faces prosecution directly. It covers financial services businesses satisfying any two of three thresholds: more than 250 staff; turnover above £36m; or assets exceeding £18m within the relevant accounting period for the organisation concerned. This simplification may expose regulated businesses to heightened infiltration by fraudsters and to follow-on liability under the ‘failure to prevent fraud’ offence where a fraud is carried out that...

V and another v K; K v V and another [2025] EWHC 1704 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling in V v K underscores the paramount importance of strict procedural adherence in litigation arising out of arbitration. Practitioners should ensure prompt applications for permission to appeal are made at the judgment hand-down hearing, or alternatively seek a formal adjournment where required. If that step is missed, the court below lacks jurisdiction to grant permission at a later date. Moreover, failing to provide draft grounds of appeal at the relevant time is contrary to the Commercial Court Guide and can seriously jeopardise the chances of any subsequent appeal. The court made clear that where a party cannot set out, concisely, draft grounds explaining why the judgment is said to be wrong, it is highly unlikely to conclude that an appeal has a...

Hopcraft and another v Close Brothers Limited; Johnson v First Rand Bank Limited ( London Branch) t/a Moto Novo Finance; Wrench v First Rand Bank Limited ( London Branch) t/a Moto Novo Finance [2025] UKSC 33 Background These three conjoined appeals addressed payments of commission by finance lenders to motor dealers for arranging hire purchase finance on cars, where that remuneration was not revealed, or only partly revealed, to the car hirers. In the usual scenario, a buyer attends a dealership, selects a vehicle, and agrees a price with the dealer. The dealer then secures a finance offer from a lender on hire purchase terms. Acting on the lender’s behalf, the dealer puts that offer to the customer. In every appeal, the dealer made profit on the vehicle sale and, significantly, also obtained a commission from the lender for introducing the business. Either the fact of...