Featured documents
Lucasfilm did not benefit in any way at Tyburn Film Productions Ltd's expense, counsel said to the appeals court there on 3 December 2025, in part because it already possessed rights over Cushing's likeness and an agreement and consent from the Cushing estate to 'resurrect' him as Grand Moff Tarkin. Tyburn contends it earlier made an agreement with the late actor then, at the time, granting the company a veto over any use of his image prior to his 1994 death. That contract concerns a TV series titled 'Heritage of Horror', which never aired. Tyburn further asserts the deal permits it to effectively 'resurrect' Cushing using stand-ins and CGI to ultimately finish the programme then if the actor were to die whilst filming remained in progress...
Irish telecom operator Eircom’s damages lawsuit against BT Group over a public-sector contract must be carefully managed to trial to deal with confidentiality issues and other matters, a UK judge told the parties today. At the High Court in London today, a judge said Eircom’s damages action against BT over a public-sector contract needs tight case management through to trial to address confidentiality and related concerns. Eircom brought the claim after Ofcom in 2020 penalised BT for its behaviour during a tender. Speaking to both sides, Judge Adam Johnson urged them to resolve any confidentiality flashpoints themselves and signalled he had no wish to step in unless it became unavoidable. He also expressed confidence that parties would do everything possible to keep confidential designations to a minimum, noting this was necessary to maintain control over the conduct of the trial. He framed this as the
The following document is attached: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/274 dated 5 February 2026, revising Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1981, establishing a final anti-dumping levy on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware produced in...
Justice Richard Arnold granted AstraZeneca leave to appeal and permitted lorries carrying about 175,000 packs of Glenmark’s generics to move on to wholesalers, provided they did not reach pharmacy shelves while the case continued at any point during those interim proceedings. In this way, Glenmark could keep its first-to-market advantage, while causing only minimal detriment to AstraZeneca should the Court of Appeal later be persuaded to issue an injunction against supply. The judge said this approach maintained the status quo with the least possible prejudice to Glenmark’s position overall. The hearing was arranged at short notice, just days after the High Court refused AstraZeneca an injunction to block the diabetes generic from sale while the court considered whether the patents supporting the branded medicine were valid in law. Glenmark, Generics (UK) Ltd and Teva Pharmaceuticals have each begun proceedings in the UK to set...
Most recent News
Subsidy control Government publishes direction disapplying the Subsidy Control Act 2022 to the Clean Energy Car Grant Scheme The Department for Business and Trade has issued a direction, dated 13 July 2025 and signed by the Secretary of State, which disapplies sections 52 to 55 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 in relation to the Clean Energy Car Grant Scheme. The Clean Energy Car Grant Scheme is a £650m initiative providing grants of up to £3,750 towards the purchase of new eligible electric cars......
Karpasitis v County Council [2025] EWCA Civ 788 What was the background? This case concerned a cyclist injured after hitting a hole in a grass verge and being unseated. The County Council sought to rely on a section 58 defence, contending that Mr Cooke had undertaken a walked inspection of the route two months earlier. A document containing GPS information from Mr Cooke’s vehicle on the inspection day was produced; it indicated a single stop lasting three minutes. Mr Cooke’s evidence included that, had he noticed the hole in the verge, he would have logged it as a defect demanding urgent attention. Shortly before trial, the County Council served a Civil Evidence Act Notice relating to his testimony. At trial, however, two witnesses for the County Council stated that Mr Cooke would have marked the defect as not needing urgent attention, directly...
Cotham School v Bristol City Council and another [2025] EWHC 1382 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling warrants close attention from village green practitioners, including those serving as independent inspectors appointed by commons registration authorities. In particular: as CA 2006, s 1 has not been commenced for the Bristol area, CRA 1965, s 14 remains available where land is entered as a village green (at paras [40]–[42]) the judge had earlier refused the City Council’s bid to participate separately in its landowning capacity as well as as the commons registration authority ( CRA), and comments on that and on whether it is proper for a CRA to do other than maintain neutrality in such matters (at paras [6]–[10]) the judge explains with clarity the method for determining such a claim, stressing the frailty of memory and the...
Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Republic of India [2025] EWHC 1553 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The Commercial Court Report 2023–2024, released in February 2025, notes a 242% year‑on‑year rise in challenges brought under AA 1996, s 67. Set against the previous period, however, the picture is more muted: translated into absolute terms the increase is from seven to 24 jurisdiction applications in 2023–2024, so the headline percentage risks overstating the trend without context. Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Republic of India sits within the even rarer class of successful section 67 challenges; in 2023–2024 there was only one such success recorded. Given how small the dataset is, Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Republic of India should not be treated as heralding a surge of judicial activism in relation to section 67...
Solicitor-client costs and CFA enforceability— Substance over form ( Richardson & Others v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd) Richardson and others v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 1220 ( SCCO) What are the practical implications of this case? Although the obligation to provide an oral explanation of CFA terms was removed in 2005, this ruling highlights the ongoing value of a clear onboarding process to ensure clients grasp key or atypical CFA provisions, especially where they carry financial consequences. The court found it unnecessary for solicitors to deliver a detailed oral explanation of the workings of a CFA. That said, practitioners are likely to benefit from drawing attention to any unusual or significant clauses and preserving records of those conversations to deter later challenges. While informed consent is not a strict requirement for a CFA to be enforceable, its absence may bear upon the...
On 10 July 2025, Neil Roberts, the LMA’s head of marine and aviation, noted that incidents where Houthi fighters attacked and sank two ships have underscored the ‘need for caution’ for organisations contemplating passage through the sea inlet......
Insurers underwriting trade credit and supply-chain covers have been narrowing policy wordings as they brace for claims amid the swings in global trading terms ushered in by the Trump administration. A projected surge in worldwide insolvencies could unsettle supplier credit arrangements. Additional exposures may arise from goods being stockpiled in warehouses, and disruption at ports could put pressure on supply-chain policy conditions. These dynamics could not only prompt litigation over whether policies respond to particular losses, but also fuel disputes between insurers where a policyholder’s covers potentially overlap. Sonia Campbell, a partner at law firm Covington & Burling LLP, noted that carriers are likely to scrutinise their heightened risk very carefully. In such a volatile market, she said, insurers will keep a firm focus on limiting that exposure. She also indicated that, if this continues, the market may harden, whether through the...
The French music streaming platform alleged in a High Court claim that Mobius Solutions Ltd compromised Deezer user data by keeping it insecurely and not erasing it after pledging to do so. According to the particulars lodged with the court on 15 June 2025 and only recently disclosed, Deezer says ‘ Mobius did not adequately shield Deezer’s confidential information from unauthorised use, access or disclosure, failing to apply the level of care Mobius would afford its own information of similar significance and/or a reasonable standard of care’. Deezer seeks an order requiring Mobius (best known for its Optimove digital marketing platform) to indemnify the company in respect of proceedings brought by more than 6,000 users arising out of the incident as detailed within the High Court claim......
Antitrust Commission issues first opinion on the compatibility of a sustainability agreement in the French wine sector with competition rules for agriculture The Commission has published its inaugural assessment of a sustainability accord in the French wine sector against EU competition rules for agriculture. The arrangement, bringing together producers and purchasers of organic and Haute Valeur Environnementale ( HVE) wines in the Occitanie region, establishes indicative (orientation) prices to steer bulk regional wine deals. Its purpose is to promote sustainable production by making sure prices meet costs and include a reasonable profit margin. Background and context Article 210a of Regulation ( EU) No 1308/2013 ( CMO Regulation) grants a sector-specific derogation, or exemption, from certain key competition rules for the agricultural sector, acknowledging that cooperation among producers can be both necessary and beneficial for market efficiency, overall product quality, and...
Vietjet Aviation Joint Stock Company v FW Aviation ( Holdings) 1 Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 783 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the summary of the principles governing the interpretation of tax treaties set out by Lady Justice Falk in Royal Bank of Canada v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 695, [2023] STC 1205, a position later upheld by the Supreme Court ( Royal Bank of Canada v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2025] UKSC 2, [2025]1 WLR 939). Practitioners will be reassured that the Court of Appeal left untouched centuries of tax law that firmly preserves the distinction between trading and investment. Viet Jet contended that the trial judge had fallen into error in concluding that, because FWA carried on a trade, it was not ‘making or managing investments’......
High Court Judge Simon Bryan authorised the aluminium conglomerate to serve the sanctioned ex-owner of English football club Chelsea FC via 'senior lawyers' at the London office of law firm Kobre & Kim LLP, while Rusal keeps tying Abramovich to its ongoing, intricate court fight against Vladimir Potanin, chief executive of PJSC MMC Norilsk Nickel. Kobre & Kim confirmed in July 2022 that it had registered to act for Abramovich in the United States. Nathan Pillow KC of Essex Court Chambers, counsel to Rusal, stated in written submissions that his client was worried about whether it could validly serve papers on Abramovich at his recorded correspondence address, a riverside residence in the affluent Chelsea district of London......
In a 7 July 2025 court submission, Boeing argued that a group of 737 Max claims, brought by six corporate entities formed to hold title to aircraft leased to Norwegian Air, have too little in common with the 787 Dreamliner claims to be combined in one case. Boeing said the 737 Max and 787 Dreamliner matters are brought by legally separate entities, involve different aircraft models, arise from contracts executed at different times, include different sets of aircraft owners and assignees, and rest on distinct legal theories. According to Boeing, the amended complaint from the entities, led by AAA Max 1 Ltd, places heavy emphasis on allegations concerning Boeing’s sale of twelve 737 Max aircraft, the jet’s manoeuvring system, pilot training, and the two fatal 737 crashes in 2018 and 2019 that together claimed 346 lives......
Tonkin v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 750 ( TC) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling offers helpful certainty: when a disguised remuneration arrangement collapses for income tax and NIC, an IHT charge under IHTA 1984, s 94 is not an inevitable consequence. The Tribunal found that s 94(2)(a) was in point, meaning no apportionment—and therefore no IHT liability—arose insofar as the transfer of value corresponded to sums brought into account in calculating employment income. This outcome trims HMRC’s ability to deploy IHT as a back-up assessment where remuneration schemes fail. The judgment also reflects judicial unease with attempts to impose overlapping liabilities where the relevant value has already borne PAYE in full. Overall, it underlines that the IHT code must operate consistently with the income tax regime, and that Parliament’s protections against double taxation must be upheld. In short, it brings welcome...
Abbotsford Property Group Ltd and another v Revenue Scotland [2025] FTSTC 9 The dispute arose from 2017 property transactions in which both appellants claimed group relief in their LBTT returns. That entitlement fell away on 31 May 2017 when each appellant’s share capital was subdivided and further shares were issued to persons other than the parent holding company, thereby reducing its interest below the qualifying threshold for group relief. Saffery Champness LLP (the firm’s name at the time), acting as the appellants’ tax adviser (the Tax Adviser), made a voluntary disclosure in February 2022, admitting that the original returns were inaccurate. It was accepted between the parties that Revenue Scotland’s power to issue an assessment to LBTT existed only by virtue of sections 98(1) and 102 of the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers......
Subsidy control The Government publishes the Subsidy Control ( Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) ( Amendment) Regulations 2025 The Subsidy Control ( Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) ( Amendment) Regulations 2025 ( SI 2025/845) (the Regulations) have been issued alongside an explanatory memorandum. Finalised on 10 July 2025, they will take effect from 4 August 2025. The Regulations put into effect a decision announced by the government in April 2025, following consultation on potential refinements to the subsidy control regime......
Counsel for Pfizer and its collaborator Bio NTech told the Court of Appeal on 10 July 2025 that the High Court had ‘fallen into error’ when assessing whether a central claim of Moderna’s patent was both novel and obvious at the time it filed the application. Tom Mitcheson KC, appearing for Pfizer, made clear that only Claim 3 of the surviving Moderna patent remained in dispute in these proceedings. Its challenge to Claim 5 fell away because it is not part of Moderna’s pending claim requests before the European Patent Office. Accordingly, Mitcheson said that their position on novelty is now ‘even stronger’ than it was before the trial judge. Moderna began the case in 2022 by issuing suits against Pfizer and Bio NTech in the US......
The Republic of India v CC/ Devas ( Mauritius) Ltd (in administration) and other companies ( CC/ Devas ( Mauritius) Ltd and other companies, intervening) [2025] EWHC 1738 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment supplies clear direction on the boundaries of judicial intervention under AA 1996, s 45 where an arbitral tribunal has already resolved a procedural point—namely, who is authorised to represent the parties in the arbitration. It emphasises that s 45 should not be deployed to re‑argue determinations the tribunal has made, particularly where those determinations engage knotty questions of representation, public policy, and international law. The decision also brings into focus the procedural pitfalls that can arise in BIT arbitrations when insolvency or administration proceedings in a claimant’s home jurisdiction generate competing instructions or mandates in practice......
Vietjet Aviation Joint Stock Company v FW Aviation ( Holdings) 1 Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 783 What are the practical implications of this case? In this Court of Appeal decision, the judges drew a firm line between a lender’s use of rights transferred to it by a security document and the separate power to enforce that security. A clause permitting an assignee to enforce the security only once an enforcement event has occurred did not, absent contrary wording, bar the lender from exercising the contractual rights that had been assigned. Accordingly, the contractual mechanism for assignment operated independently of the enforcement regime. On these facts, a lease termination notice issued to the contractual counterparty by the lender in its capacity as assignee was effective, even though no ‘enforcement event’ under the loan agreement had yet arisen. The ruling underscores the need for security...
Map your supply chain As noted in the UK Government’s Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2025 (2025 Survey), 45% of large businesses reviewed the cyber security risks arising from their immediate suppliers, compared with 21% of small businesses. This marks a decline from 55% in 2023. Only 25% looked at the risks presented by their wider supply chain. Cyber threats originating outside your organisation are generally harder to detect and to control. Understanding who your direct and indirect suppliers are, what they provide, how they provide it, and which data they hold and can access will help you pick out your critical providers and manage cyber security risks to your business more effectively. Mapping your supply chain will also show which measures can be enforced easily through contracts and place you to respond more quickly to supply chain related cyber incidents and to...
Crownsway Off Licence Ltd v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UKFTT 668 ( GRC) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores the need for a proportionate and fair approach to enforcing automatic enrolment obligations under the Pensions Act 2008 ( Pen A 2008). The First-tier Tribunal set aside a £400 fixed penalty notice ( FPN) issued by TPR to the small employer, Crownsway Off Licence Ltd, for non-compliance with a UCN. The Tribunal accepted the breach stemmed from genuine difficulties: the payroll agent’s death and the successor’s inability to access the pension provider account. The judgment makes clear that, although TPR’s enforcement powers are strong, they are not limitless. Employers confronted with unexpected and credible operational hurdles may successfully challenge penalties where they can show a good reason for non-compliance, particularly when they are not at fault and swift...
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
