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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Financial services developments FCA proceeds with motor finance compensation scheme The FCA has finalised an industry-wide motor finance redress scheme, setting out rules in Policy Statement PS26/3 to compensate customers treated unfairly after courts ruled that firms failed to disclose key commission structures. The watchdog said a scheme is the fastest and most economical way to deliver redress while providing greater certainty for firms, investors and the wider market. Following consultation CP25/27, it has tightened the scope and lowered the expected overall cost. Agreements for motor finance entered between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024, where a lender paid commission to a broker, will be reviewed for compensation. Consumers will generally qualify if they were not informed about a discretionary commission model, a high-commission arrangement, or specified contractual links between lender and broker. Some cases are excluded, including...
Digital markets CMA outlines a suite of measures for business software and cloud services. Under the Digital Markets Competition Regime, the authority is today moving to tackle competition issues affecting cloud provision and enterprise software across the market......
Ramsdale v Ditta and others [2026] EWHC 544 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Applications to retract admissions fall within CPR 14, which underwent a major overhaul and streamlining in October 2023. Both the CPR and case law place marked emphasis on admissions because they dispose, for the purposes of the proceedings, of the points they cover, cutting expense and enabling the parties to concentrate on the matters that remain live; accordingly, the bar for granting permission is, and ought to be, relatively elevated. The courts have time and again condemned so-called expert shopping, where a party turns to a second expert in the same speciality merely because they dislike the first expert’s opinion. In this dispute, the defendant resorted to a second nursing expert only because the first withdrew from all further medico-legal work. The court did not...
Financial services developments FCA clarifies role on investment trust voting, conflicts and listing rules review The Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) has issued a blog describing its responsibilities regarding investment trust voting, conflicts of interest and governance, while also outlining the scope of its forthcoming review of the UK Listing Rules for investment entities. The blog seeks to address current market discussion and set out regulatory accountabilities, making clear the boundaries of the FCA’s remit. It explains that investment trusts are subject to shareholder rights under the Companies Act 2006 ( CA 2006), including the ‘one share, one vote’ principle, with primary oversight lying with Parliament and the Department for Business and Trade ( DBT), rather than the FCA. The FCA also stresses that the listing framework applies to issuers, not to shareholders, and that the power of shareholders to hold boards to account is an...
Meta Platforms, Tik Tok, X and Amazon are now well used to the steady rhythm of enforcement under the EU's content-moderation law, but are increasingly encountering private actions that seek remedies for alleged shortcomings. Such claims were always envisaged by the EU's Digital Services Act ( EU DSA), operating alongside public oversight by the European Commission and national regulators, and they are now emerging as a growing exposure for Big Tech platforms. Most of the EU DSA lawsuits disclosed to date have been brought by advocacy groups and consumer organisations in Germany and the Netherlands, and have been filed in national courts (see here, here and here). As a result, these first decisions take effect only at the national level. One example is a recent Dutch ruling in summary proceedings that compelled Meta to offer Facebook and Instagram users a...
See Practice Note: Getting in the company's property under section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986—key cases For guides covering evidence and gathering, refer to: Evidence and evidence gathering—overview and Evidence gathering and obtaining property—overview......
Antitrust • The CMA has revised its schedule for its ongoing probe into potential infringements of the Chapter I prohibition under the Competition Act, linked to suspected anti-competitive behaviour in the provision of waste management services. The regulator had earlier indicated that the initial phase, including evidence collection, would run to March 2026. That stage has now been extended, with the CMA confirming that further information-gathering will continue until July 2026—see further, case page. NOTE— For all live behavioural investigations before the CMA, see further, UK behavioural investigations—ongoing cases tracker. Upcoming dates— For dates of forthcoming UK competition developments, see further, UK Competition calendar......
Joseph Iosefa v Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc; Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc v Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1500 What are the practical implications of the case? The ruling offers significant direction on how to read and apply multi-tier dispute resolution provisions that map out sequential or alternative pathways to settle controversies, notably negotiation, arbitration, and court proceedings. It underscores the necessity for precise drafting, requiring parties to unmistakably record an intention that disputes are to be resolved only by arbitration if that is what they want. Where exclusivity is intended, the clause must say so in clear terms and avoid wording that permits litigation to re-emerge simply because the parties cannot agree procedural details of the arbitration. In this matter, the clause was not treated as a binding agreement to arbitrate, as the parties had contemplated resolving the dispute through...
EU financial services developments EIOPA proposes amendments to ease Solvency II reporting and disclosure requirements The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority ( EIOPA) has issued a report suggesting updates to supervisory reporting and public disclosure under the Solvency II Directive 2009/138/ EC ( Solvency II), aiming to lighten the reporting load on (re)insurance firms while preserving robust oversight. These recommendations appear in EIOPA’s final report and contribute to its efforts to enhance the proportionality, coherence and practicality of the Solvency II reporting and disclosure regime. The revisions seek to simplify obligations and remedy concerns highlighted through supervisory practice and input from stakeholders across the sector and supervisory communities......
EU Member States are facing a challenge to ensure smooth cross-sectoral and cross-border co-operation between the regulators tasked with enforcing the bloc EU's AI law, with no easy solution to navigate the complexity. Timetables for crucial elements of the EU AI Act have already slipped. Most EU countries failed to meet August 2025’s deadline to establish national authorities to oversee rules for high-risk AI systems. Setbacks in creating compliance tools, including technical standards, have led the European Commission to suggest postponing the high-risk regime, thereby granting Member States additional time to ready their governance arrangements. The EU AI Act leaves it to national governments to decide how to organise AI oversight, resulting in enforcement duties being spread across a mix of data protection authorities, telecom regulators, cybersecurity agencies and other regulatory bodies. “ The institutional structures vary in each country, and we need to...
Mergers The Commission has granted approval for: the takeover conferring exclusive control of Zentiva Group by GTCR LLC ( M.12186), following a phase I investigation—see further, Midday Express the deal awarding shared control of Rockaway Arts a.s. to Rockaway Media a.s. and VALEA FOUNDATION ( M.12295), following a phase I investigation—see further, Midday Express the acquisition giving sole control over various undertakings forming the Leviat Group across multiple jurisdictions by OEP IX Master Coöperatief U. A. ......
Financial services developments FCA webpage sets out cryptoasset registration information The Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) has issued details for firms planning to seek registration under the money laundering regulations ( MLRs) ahead of the forthcoming cryptoasset regulation regime. The webpage outlines when MLR registration is required and how to apply in line with the following timelines: before 30 September 2026 on or after 30 September 2026 after 31 July 2027 The FCA clarifies that this guidance does not apply to cryptoasset businesses that must remain FCA‑registered under the MLRs but will not need authorisation under the new FSMA regime. For those firms, the MLR gateway will continue to function as normal. Source: Cryptoasset firms: Registration under the MLRs ahead of the new FSMA regime FCA fines Dinosaur Merchant Bank Limited for CFD systems and controls failings The FCA has fined Dinosaur Merchant Bank Limited ( DMBL) £338,000 for failing to...
The Los Angeles County Superior Court jury’s finding in the landmark Bellwether trial that Meta must pay US$2.1m in punitive damages and Google US$900,000, for conduct characterised as malice, fraud or oppression, creates substantial litigation exposure for the trillion‑dollar companies, which face thousands of comparable lawsuits nationwide. The jury was directed to apportion the US$3m compensatory award between the two defendants and decided Instagram bore 70% of the responsibility, with You Tube accountable for 30%. The punitive damages award, which doubles the overall damages, follows the same allocation. The 25 March 2026 verdict arrived just one day after a New Mexico jury determined that Meta owes US$375m in relation to the state lawyer general’s claims that the social media giant concealed the full extent of mental health harm its apps were causing to underage users. After the compensatory verdict was...
EU financial services developments ESAs publish spring 2026 joint risk update The three European Supervisory Authorities—the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, and the European Securities and Markets Authority (together, the ESAs)—have released their spring 2026 Joint Committee assessment on risks and fragilities in the EU financial system. It highlights issues stemming from persistent geopolitical strains and shifts in private finance. Despite the unsettled geopolitical backdrop, the ESAs report that European financial markets have continued to display notable resilience......
Mergers The Commission has been notified of: Züblin/ Geiger Bauwerksanierung/ Capsys ( M.12350) (simplified merger procedure) Permira/ Warburg Pincus/ Clearwater Analytics ( M.12339) (simplified merger procedure) Motherson/ Nexans Autoelectric ( M.12340) (simplified merger procedure) Charlesbank/ Nordic Capital/ Tecomet/ Orchid ( M.12319) (simplified merger procedure) State aid Acting under the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework ( CISAF), the Commission cleared a Luxembourg scheme worth €500m to back strategic investments expanding cleantech manufacturing capacity, aligned with the Clean Industrial Deal’s objectives—see further, press release Under EU State aid rules, the Commission authorised a French measure valued at €144m for Hyfor Seeds to produce renewable and low‑carbon hydrogen for the fertiliser sector—see further, press release NOTE— For the set of decisions adopted under the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework, see further, EU State aid decisions— TCF, TCTF and...
Titchfield Festival Theatre Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another [2026] EWCA Civ 368 What was the background? Titchfield ran a theatre across three linked units ( Areas A, B and C). In 2023, Fareham Borough Council, as local planning authority, served an enforcement notice alleging an unauthorised material change of use to theatre use in Areas B and C, and associated engineering works. The notice required cessation of use and reinstatement works. Titchfield appealed under TCPA 1990, s 174. During the appeal it was agreed that, before the breach, Areas A and B had lawful theatre use, while Area C had lawful storage use. Titchfield’s case relied in part on a fallback under TCPA 1990, s 57(4), contending it was entitled to revert to those former uses and that steps required by the enforcement notice, on a ground (f)...
Simms- Davies v Southwark Crown Court [2026] EWHC 337 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision confirms that sanctioning a DPA is a judicial exercise that attracts the open justice principle, as freshly reaffirmed by the Divisional Court in R ( Marandi) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2023] 2 Cr App R 215 at [43]. The presumption is that the rulings endorsing DPAs can name people who are pertinent to the court’s analysis. Granting anonymity is a rare departure from that norm. It requires persuasive, specific evidence showing it is required to shield a person from interference with their Convention or other common law rights. Treating anonymity as distinct from reporting restrictions makes no difference to that legal standard: both sit within the open justice framework. What was the background? Two construction companies, Bluu Solutions Ltd ( Bluu) and Tetris- Projects Ltd (...
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal on 23 March 2026 to a group of Brazilian municipalities seeking to challenge its decision that BHP could not be held in contempt for seeking anti-suit relief from an overseas court It remains open to the municipalities to ask the UK Supreme Court for permission to appeal. On 13 March 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed BHP’s appeal, finding that pursuing lawful anti-suit relief cannot constitute contempt merely because it may disrupt ongoing English proceedings. BHP had appealed the High Court’s June 2025 judgment, which had determined there were reasonable grounds to argue BHP was in contempt. The claimant municipalities relied on the fact that BHP had agreed to finance a claim brought by......
Pringle v Nervo [2026] EWCA Civ 266 What are the practical implications of this case? First, the settled principle that costs should not ordinarily be ordered in children proceedings has been reasserted, clearly and at a high appellate level (para [64]). As this ruling makes plain, a costs award that departs from the established authorities in children matters is notably prone to being overturned on a successful appeal. Second, the judgment confirms that Lord Justice Jackson’s recent depiction of costs orders in children work as ‘exceptional’ (in the private law case Re E ( Children: Costs) [2025] EWCA Civ 183, [2025] 2 FLR 141) aligns in substance with the Supreme Court’s labelling of them as ‘unusual’ (per Lady Hale in the public law case Re S [2015] UKSC 20, [2015] 2 FLR 208), the linguistic difference between those terms being ‘of no...
FPR 2010, PD Update No 1 of 2026 FPR 2010, PD 27A—court bundles Amendments to FPR 2010, PD 27A set out which preliminary documents ought, where feasible, to be agreed by the parties, and clearly specify responsibility for lodging each preliminary document......
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
