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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Various Claimants v Mercedes- Benz Group AG and others [2024] EWHC 695 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling provides direction on two comparatively uncommon applications arising within substantial group litigation concerning vehicle emissions claims pursued against the manufacturers. It confirms that, when addressing applications under CPR 31.22—seeking to curb collateral use of documents disclosed and deployed at hearings in open court—the starting point is the primacy of open justice. The court will require compelling, specific evidence to justify any curb on use, and, even then, will insist that any order is tightly confined to the particular documents for which restriction is genuinely warranted. CPR 31.22: The prohibition on collateral use of disclosed material used in open court is exceptional; the court prioritises transparency and will only grant limits where clearly substantiated, and then only in a narrowly...
Mergers The CMA confirmed it is inviting feedback on its updated provisional ruling regarding the assessment of undertakings supplied by Circle Health Holdings in place of a reference, connected to its recently finalised acquisition of CHC Healthcare Holdings Limited......
Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, has said the move is intended to end the 'murky world of non-disclosure agreements' Under plans to curb misuse of NDAs, those bound by confidentiality clauses would still be free to raise alleged criminality with key professionals and crime-fighting bodies. On 28 March 2024, Alex Chalk set out an ambition to end the ‘murky world’ where such agreements are used to conceal wrongdoing, adding that the reforms will make clear in law that gagging orders cannot lawfully be wielded against victims to block justice or silence them. Lawyers and the police Medical practitioners and counsellors Advocates and other organisations that investigate crime The change will not bite immediately; legislation will be brought forward ‘when parliamentary time allows’, the Ministry of Justice said. The Mo J also confirmed the bill will not capture NDAs signed before it secures royal...
High Court Judge Andrew Henshaw rejected bids to stay 78 claims brought by aircraft lessors seeking compensation for jets retained in Russia following Vladimir Putin’s assault on Ukraine, finding the leasing companies had demonstrated compelling grounds for the cases to be heard in the UK rather than in Russia... Henshaw J considered it highly improbable that the claimants would receive a fair hearing in Russia, which on its own “is a strong reason” to refuse a stay. He added that allowing the litigation to proceed there would inevitably proliferate parallel proceedings and markedly increase the risk of contradictory findings on core questions. He also noted a degree of danger of personal attacks on individuals who would ordinarily attend trial, further reinforcing the conclusion that robust reasons exist to deny a stay... The Russian state acted against aircraft leased from overseas owners after Western...
Best interests in a two P situation ( Re MA & AA) MA (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v A Local Authority and another; AA (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v A Local Authority [2023] EWCOP 65 What are the practical implications of this case? The outcomes on what served MA (wife) and AA (husband) as being in their best interests were interdependent. Following Francis J’s ruling in HH v Hywel Dda University Health Board & Others [2023] EWCOP 18, the two cases were combined. That joinder enabled District Judge Simpson to weigh both sides’ competing considerations at the same time and to reach an all-round conclusion reflecting each person’s needs and welfare. Although the decision does not forge new authority, it is a helpful illustration for practitioners of conducting a best interests assessment where there are ‘two P’s’ and the...
Barclays Bank plc v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 246 ( TC) In late 2008, the Barclays group undertook the following measures to bolster its Tier 1 capital ratios, thereby sidestepping the need for a government rescue: BBPLC issued £3bn of RCIs to two strategic investors as well as other institutional backers; and concurrently, its parent, Barclays plc ( Barclays), granted five-year share warrants over its own stock to the strategic investors for a nominal amount. BBPLC received £3m for the RCIs but recorded the arrangements on the footing that £800m of the overall £3bn was, in reality, consideration paid by the investors for the warrants. As a result, its accounts reflected a cash inflow of £2.2bn attributed to the RCIs and £800,000 recognised as a capital contribution from Barclays. The disparity between £2.2bn......
Banking & Finance— March 2024 case round-up Re: Project Lietzenburger Straße Holdco S.À. R. L. [2024] All ER ( D) 20 ( Mar) — Restructuring plan—sanction. The Chancery Division considered whether a restructuring plan should be sanctioned. It determined that the scheme, in its present form, could not be approved because the court lacked the power to do so. Moreover, the court declined to sanction any amended iteration. To exercise, or purport to exercise, an inherent jurisdiction to alter the plan would have transformed a proposal the court had no power to sanction into one it did, which it refused. For further detail on the restructuring plan, see Practice Note: Part 26A restructuring plan deal debrief— Project Lietzenburger Strasse Holdco SÀRL. Bluestone Mortgages Ltd v Stoute [2024] All ER ( D) 46 ( Mar) — Debt Respite...
Alexander Beard v HMRC [2024] UKUT 73 ( TCC) The taxpayer, Mr Beard, held shares in Glencore plc, a company incorporated in Jersey and domiciled in Switzerland. Between the tax years 2011–12 and 2015–16 he received cash distributions taken from the company’s share premium account, together with an in specie distribution in 2015 (the Distributions). HMRC issued a closure notice treating the Distributions as chargeable to income tax. Mr Beard appealed, contending that, because they were funded from the share premium account, the Distributions were dividends of a capital nature. This mattered because ITTOIA 2005, s 402 states that dividends from a non- UK resident company are subject to income tax, save for ‘dividends of a capital nature’. On that footing, Mr Beard maintained that the Distributions fell outside the income tax charge and were instead within the scope of capital gains tax......
XY v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 81 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? Despite clear authorities condemning reliance on undisclosed policies that conflict with published guidance—see R ( Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245—and affirming the constitutional requirement to communicate adverse administrative decisions so individuals can challenge them— R ( Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2004] 1 AC 604—the defendant in this case secretly halted decisions that ought to have been taken under the published policy. While no new legal principle emerges, the judgment serves as a prompt to practitioners that, notwithstanding the clarity of these authorities, judicial review may still be required and substantial steps taken to secure adequate disclosure of any concealed policies. It further warns against...
What are the practical implications of the case? The case offers significant clarification of the impartiality obligations under Article 41 of the Charter and confirms that substantive links between an expert and the pharmaceutical industry, for example consultancy arrangements or acting as principal investigator in clinical trials, could compromise such impartiality when assessing an application for a marketing authorisation concerning a potentially rival medicinal product, even where no demonstrable bias on the part of the expert can be shown. The judgment provides reassurance for industry in a context where a narrow reading of conflicts of interest has long been regarded as unsatisfactory and proof of actual bias is frequently hard to secure. However, the Court of Justice’s decision appears likely to create difficulties for the EMA and comparable bodies, particularly in rare diseases where there are few well qualified experts and most of these...
On 1 April 2024, the University and College Union ( UCU) announced that benefits for Universities Superannuation Scheme ( USS) members were reinstated, following Universities UK, the sector body, agreeing in October 2023 to roll back the reductions. Members of the union staged 69 days of strike action in response to proposals to change the pace at which benefits are built up. The scheme’s trustee had signed off the reductions, arguing they were required to address a funding shortfall......
GOV. UK Simplifying holiday entitlement and holiday pay calculations (updated 1 April 2024) What are the implications of this updated guidance? Advisers on holiday entitlement and pay should consult the revised edition of the government’s guidance. The revisions indicate that the DBT has treated as well-founded several of the critiques put forward by commentators — ourselves among them — of the original guidance......
Mergers The Commission approved the acquisition conferring sole control of Eriks N. V. to Lone Star Global Acquisitions, Ltd...
On 12 July 2024, Regulation ( EU) 2024/1689, the EU AI Act, appeared in the Official Journal of the EU. It took legal effect on 1 August 2024 and will roll out in stages. Although the rules banning certain AI practices will start to apply from 2 February 2025, most duties, including those concerning high-risk AI systems named in Annex III, will apply from 2 August 2026. As the majority of organisations do not build AI systems themselves but instead deploy them for diverse uses, the consequences of the EU AI Act for ‘deployers’ of AI systems remain a central area of interest for organisations. Below, we outline the obligations the EU AI Act places on deployers of high-risk AI systems, notably the duty to carry out a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment ( FRIA). The FRIA is intended to reduce potential harms posed by...
The Bank of England’s ( Bo E) Financial Policy Committee ( FPC) stated that boosting liquidity buffers for liability-driven investment ( LDI) funds has made the sector more resilient to abrupt shifts in yields on long-dated government bonds. The government’s September 2022 mini-budget, comprising unfunded tax cuts, unsettled credit markets. Yields on gilts jumped 160 basis points within four days, a surge that surpassed regulators’ most adverse expectations at the time. LDI funds—used by pension providers to......
The reforms highlighted in this article were adopted to improve European capital markets and reinforce investor protection across the EU, in part by tightening the liquidity management requirements for loan‑originating alternative investment funds. NBFIs play a central role in the global financial system, supporting economic growth through the provision of non‑bank financial services and credit, yet they carry commensurate risks that are prompting intensifying regulatory intervention. AIFMD 2.0 It is evident that, when drafting AIFMD 2.0, legislators considered the market’s appetite for non‑bank finance alongside the comparatively lighter regulatory approach applied to this sector than to banks. Significant amendments are being introduced, particularly regarding: liquidity management; leverage limits; restrictions on open‑ended structures for loan‑originating alternative investment funds; and new requirements for loan origination. These measures are intended to equip fund managers to cope with substantial outflows during periods of financial...
In this issue Working time and flexible working Pay Tax Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc) Employment tribunal equality claims Diversity and gender pay gap Industrial action Unfair dismissal Employment tribunals Immigration Northern Ireland ESG and sustainability: employment issues Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers New Q& As Working time and flexible working Code of Practice ( Requests for Flexible Working) Order 2024 ( SI 2024/429): The Order designates 6 April 2024 as the date on which the updated Code of Practice on handling requests for flexible working, issued by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service ( Acas) under section 199 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations ( Consolidation) Act 1992 ( TULR( C) A 1992), takes effect. It also clarifies that the revised Code does not cover applications for flexible working made under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ( ERA 1996) that are lodged on or before 5 April 2024; however, any such...
Battersea Project Phase 2 Development Company Ltd v Q. F. S Scaffolding Ltd [2024] EWHC 591 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers clear direction on the nuanced ‘conclusive evidence’ machinery found in JCT contracts. Although the exact reach of these clauses differs between documents within the JCT suites, their common effect is that, after the works are finished, the Final Certificate/ FPN stands as definitive proof of the matters it addresses—including the valuation of the final account—unless court proceedings are commenced within the specified timescale to contest it. Here, the operative form was the JCT Design and Build Sub- Contract, 2011 edition. Even so, the court’s reasoning is expected to carry across to other JCT forms, and to analogous provisions appearing in other forms of contract as well in practice too......
Practice and procedure In this issue: Practice and procedure Private children Public children Court of Protection Lex Talk®Family: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Updated content New legislation New Q& As Useful information Courts and tribunal opening times over Easter 2024 HM Courts and Tribunals Service has confirmed a temporary closure for the Easter period from 29 March to 1 April 2024, reopening on 2 April 2024. A small number of magistrates’ courts will sit on 30 March and 1 April 2024, restricted to remand hearings only. Monday hearings paused in the Royal Courts of Justice Family Division From 9 April 2024 until 30 April 2025, the Family Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice will not list hearings on Mondays. Cases already listed on Mondays will proceed as planned....
In this issue: Brexit UK, EU and international regulators and bodies Accountability, culture and societal governance Prudential rules Stability of the financial system Financial crime and sanctions Conduct standards Complaints, redress and claims handling Investigations, enforcement and disciplinary action Benchmark regulation and IBOR transition Capital markets regulation PRIIPs ( Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products) Derivatives regulation Sustainable finance and ESG Banks and mutuals Funds and asset management Mi FID II Insurance regulation Personal pensions and stakeholder products regulation Payment services and systems Fintech and cryptoassets EEA Agreement Annex IX ( Financial Services) Financial Services Enforcement Database Daily and weekly news alerts Intraday alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary New Q& As New Q&...
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
