Legal News

Background Dairy UK Ltd ( Respondent) v Oatly AB ( Appellant) [2026] UKSC 4. The appellant, Oatly AB ( Oatly), a Swedish enterprise, manufactures and markets oat-derived foods and beverages as substitutes for dairy. The respondent, Dairy UK Ltd ( Dairy), is the representative trade body for the UK dairy sector. In April 2021, Oatly secured registration of the trade mark ‘ POST MILK GENERATION’ for specified classes of goods. The question on appeal concerned whether that mark was valid for oat-based food and drink items. In November 2021, Dairy sought a declaration of invalidity relying on section 3(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ( TMA 1994), which bars the registration of any trade mark where its use is prohibited in the UK by any enactment or rule of law other than trade mark law. Dairy contended that the Regulation creating a common...

Why is the CMA consulting? The CMA’s consultation has two primary objectives. First, CMA37 dates from 2015 and is challenging for businesses to navigate. The revised draft seeks to be plainer, clearer, and better organised, helping businesses recognise which contractual terms are permitted. Clearer guidance reduces legal uncertainty, supports compliance, and safeguards consumers from unfair practices. Second, while the underlying law on unfair contract terms under the CRA 2015 has not changed, the CMA now has additional direct enforcement powers under the DMCCA 2024. The refreshed guidance is intended to reflect these powers, so businesses understand how enforcement could work in practice and the potential consequences of non-compliance. Key takeaways from the draft guidance The draft guidance is intended to be less technical and more practical than CMA37, with a strong focus on two core principles: fairness and transparency......

Argo Blockchain Plc, Re [2025] EWHC 3395 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? First, the ruling delineates the proper approach to class meetings within restructuring plan proceedings. In 2024, the Scottish Outer House of the Court of Session determined that a class meeting could be valid with only a single attendee, provided that attendee held sufficient proxies to make the meeting quorate on the footing that each proxy was treated as a person present (see Re Dobbies Garden Centres Ltd [2024] CSOH 111). Mr Justice Hildyard rejected that position, concluding that where a class contains more than one creditor, no valid meeting can occur unless at least two persons are in attendance. The judgment also includes helpful observations on how the court’s approach may require adjustment when turnout at class meetings is low and participation is notably limited. Secondly, the court...

Darchem Engineering Limited v Bouygues Travaux Publics and another [2026] EWHC 220 ( TCC) What was the background? Darchem Engineering Limited ( Darchem) sought summary judgment to give effect to an adjudicator’s determination, under which it had been granted payment of £23,944,012. The contract in question was a sub-contract for substantial works at Hinkley Point C, entered into between two unincorporated joint ventures ( JVs). Those JVs were BYLOR ( Bouygues Travaux Publics and Laing O’ Rourke Delivery Limited) as the contractor, and EDEL ( Darchem and Efinor Limited, later Framatome Limited) as the sub-contractor. The sub-contract appeared to follow an NEC form, with the dispute resolution provisions set out in Option W. Clause 2.2 within Option W stated that 'any Party' may, at any time, refer a dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator’s decision stemmed from one of three...

See Q& A: What expenses are deducted from income arising in a non- UK resident trust created by a non-resident and non domiciled settlor who died in 2012 when computing the extent to which UK resident beneficiaries are liable to UK income tax on capital distributions from the trust? Are loan repayments (principal and interest) by the trustee on loans owed by the trustee to a company connected with the UK beneficiaries deductible? Under general principles of English trust law, trust income is charged with ordinary, repeating outgoings—such as rates and taxes—and with interest on charges and encumbrances. By contrast, the trust capital bears all costs, charges, and expenditure incurred for the benefit of the estate as a whole. See Carver v Duncan ( Inspector of Taxes); Bosanquet v Allet ( Inspector of Taxes)......

Mc Gann v Eldonian Community Trust Ltd [2025] EWHC 3103 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling distils several concrete lessons for those dealing with charity governance, disputed liabilities, and the deployment of winding-up petitions. To begin with, the court stressed that a creditor’s locus is tightly policed: a petitioner must evidence a debt that is either unchallenged or incapable of sensible dispute. If governance defects, dubious paperwork, or uncertainties about authority surround the claim, the court will readily conclude there is a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds. That stance makes clear winding-up petition is not a lever for pressure where the liability is itself arguable. Next, the judgment spotlights the perils of informal or flawed governance in companies limited by guarantee. Omitting AGMs, failing to keep accurate membership lists, or not appointing trustees lawfully can...

Gilbert and another company v Broadoak Private Finance Ltd and others [2026] EWHC 153 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores that the duty of fair presentation is exacting and fundamental to preserving the integrity of the court’s process. Before making a without notice application, an applicant must undertake proper enquiries and fully interrogate both the factual basis and the legal propositions on which they intend to rely. That obligation also embraces information that would have been identified had reasonable enquiries been pursued. Practitioners should approach these applications with meticulous care and balance, ensuring that relevant counterarguments are not minimised or left undeveloped. Make proper enquiries before any without notice application Fully investigate the facts and the legal arguments relied upon Include matters discoverable through reasonable enquiries Prepare in a...

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......

Financial services developments FCA sets out final rules for regulation of Deferred Payment Credit The Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) has released policy statement PS26/1: Regulation of Deferred Payment Credit (unregulated Buy Now Pay Later), which sets out the final rules designed to ensure borrowers receive appropriate protections when using these products, following the government’s decision to bring this sector within the FCA’s regulation. From 15 July 2026, any lender offering a Deferred Payment Credit ( DPC) agreement to fund the purchase of goods or services from a merchant will come within FCA regulation. Merchants that provide their own DPC agreements directly remain outside scope. The broking of DPC agreements is also excluded. To prepare for regulation on 15 July 2026, DPC lenders should review the FCA’s final rules and implement the required updates to their systems and controls. Firms carrying on DPC activity that do not...

Delusions and dispositions—testamentary capacity challenge succeeds but fraudulent calumny fails ( Ginger & others v Mickleburgh & others) Ginger and others v Robert Mickleburgh and others [2026] EWHC 100 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Despite Mrs Justice Falk’s guidance in Clitheroe v Bond [2021] EWHC 1102 ( Ch) refining the approach to delusions, there remain relatively few judgments illustrating in practice how the court distinguishes a simple error from a true delusional belief. Reported decisions giving worked examples of the court’s applied reasoning on that divide remain scarce. In this matter, several delusions were plain and highly fact-specific: the Deceased imagined persistent, large-scale, nocturnal harassment by neighbours over many months, clinging to these notions even as companions stood beside him and pointed out that nothing was occurring. Other features have wider resonance: he partly cut his children out because they...

Scott v the Estate of Richard Norman Scott and others [2025] EWHC 2796 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment is an engaging read, especially for those intrigued by intricate familial and financial structures, though it does not break new legal ground. The key takeaway is the inherent volatility of such claims and the attendant hazards; after the ruling on costs ( Scott v the Estate of Richard Norman Scott and others [2025] EWHC 3502 ( Ch)) the claimant was directed to meet 90% of the defendant’s costs, the size of which can reasonably be presumed to be very substantial. What was the background? Richard Norman Scott died in June 2018. In his lifetime he married twice and had numerous further relationships. In total he fathered at least 19 children from those various relationships. Among them was Adam, his second eldest child....

The Court of Appeal ruled against GIC Re India Corporate Member Ltd in its bid to overturn a 2025 decision that had awarded Tyson International Co Ltd permanent anti-suit relief from New York arbitration amid a clash between the parties’ reinsurance contracts. According to the judgment, the initial suite of reinsurance agreements—market reform contracts ( MRCs)—stipulated English law and jurisdiction, whereas a second batch, the facultative certificates, executed a few days later, prescribed arbitration in New York. In January 2025, a decision by Nigel Cooper KC, sitting as a High Court judge, was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeal, holding that a so-called confusion clause confirmed that the English law and jurisdiction terms in one agreement overrode the New York arbitration provision in the other. The Court of Appeal recorded that the MRCs included no arbitration clause of any kind,...

Mergers The Commission approved the following: Google’s acquisition of Wiz ( M.11964) following a phase I review—see the Midday Express the acquisition of joint control over Groupe Bertin Technologies S. A. S......

Adcamp LLP v Office Properties [2026] EWCA Civ 50 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling underscores that, once the limitation period has lapsed, the court’s jurisdiction to join or replace parties is narrowly circumscribed. The ‘necessity’ limb—the second gateway—in CPR 19.6(3)(b), reflecting LA 1980, s 35(6)(b), applies only where the cause advanced before and after substitution is, in essence, the same. In successor or assumed liability scenarios, the pleaded case against the successor hinges on proving the mechanism by which liability moved or was taken on—such as novation, estoppel, acknowledgement for limitation purposes, etc—so the case against the original party is not substantively identical; the core facts required to fix liability diverge. It was accepted that the ‘mistake’ limb—the first gateway—under LA 1980, s 35(6)(a) and CPR 19.6(3)(a) is confined to errors as to name rather than identity....

One Hyde Park Ltd v Laing O’ Rourke Construction South Ltd [2026] EWHC 155 ( TCC) What was the background? The dispute concerned significant and widespread defects at One Hyde Park, a high-end residential development in Knightsbridge (the Property), completed in 2011. The claim stemmed from works carried out under a construction contract between the defendant contractor, Laing O’ Rourke Construction South Limited ( LOR), and the original developer. On 8 September 2010, LOR provided a collateral warranty to the claimant, One Hyde Park Limited ( OHP), assuring LOR’s performance of the main contract. The freehold was later transferred to OHP on 11 June 2014, and OHP continues to manage and oversee the Property for tenants under leasehold arrangements. In November 2014, corrosion was identified in the chilled water pipework, and ensuing investigations uncovered butterfly valve failures, leaking soldered joints, and a defective...

What are the practical implications of this case? SRN v Nekiwala and another [2026] EWHC 16 ( KB) underscores the wide judicial discretion in granting interim payments under CPR 25.10(1). It offers guidance on how courts estimate a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment in brain injury claims where a defendant resists a TIL, challenges treatment and/or runs contributory negligence points. The claimant’s intricate immigration status also influenced the outcome; the defendant accepted that, if status is regularised in future and medical evidence shows significant ongoing symptoms, the claimant would have a stronger basis for a substantial interim payment later (para [23]). A further difficulty was the court’s refusal to fund a TIL because defence experts disputed its necessity and the claimant had not firmly committed to it. Claimant practitioners should assemble persuasive medical and witness evidence to support any proposed TIL and ensure the...

The legal delta: what changes? Even with the cap removed, compensatory awards still track compensatory loss, bounded by the familiar constraints: causation, mitigation and tribunal reductions such as Polkey deductions (where a fair dismissal would have occurred if a procedural defect were remedied) or deductions for contributory fault. Yet, despite those limits, once the statutory ceiling falls away, three outcomes are likely in most senior exits: The settlement corridor broadens significantly. For senior/high-earning employees, the ‘statutory anchor’ stops doing the heavy lifting and claimants are more inclined to push claims closer to a hearing (or at least right up to the brink of it) Incentives move from background noise to pleaded loss. Bonus ‘loss of chance’, forfeiture of deferred awards, and the valuation impact of equity vesting/lapse/forfeiture decisions become central features in schedules of loss Process risk turns into multiplier risk. Where relevant, the ACAS Code uplift (up to 25%)...

Article A New Vision for Water ( January 2026): regulatory consolidation, planning reform, and the re-settlement of environmental accountability in England Introduction: a White Paper drafted in the language of constitutional correction The Government’s White Paper, A New Vision for Water ( January 2026, CP 1490), is most aptly read as an attempt to refound the legal and institutional order for England’s water sector. Its central refrain is not that the present system needs minor adjustment, but that it is structurally unsound. The charges are well known, but are cast here in expressly juridical terms: splintered mandates and misaligned incentives; duplicative and burdensome planning obligations; insufficient transparency; weak consumer protection; a delivery model that fails to convert public policy into performance at the scale now required by environmental deterioration, climate volatility, and population...

Financial services developments FCA takes action against HTX over cryptoasset promotion concerns The Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) has confirmed it has initiated court action against global crypto exchange HTX (previously Huobi) for unlawfully promoting cryptoasset services to UK customers. This marks the first occasion to date on which the FCA has pursued enforcement action against a cryptoasset business suspected of unlawfully marketing its offerings to people in the UK. From October 2023, when all cryptoasset firms fell within the FCA’s financial promotions framework, as applicable to such communications, any firm offering crypto products to UK customers must follow rules designed to shield consumers from unfair or misleading publicity. Promoting cryptoassets on social platforms or websites without meeting these standards constitutes a criminal offence. On 21 October 2025, the FCA issued proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court against the...

Akbars contends the Home Office ought to have identified which of four statutory bases it relied upon to impose the fine on the business. The grounds are: lack of permission for a worker to be in the UK invalid permission permission that has ceased to have effect permission that does not authorise the person to work there Counsel for Akbars, Sohail Mohammed of Kingston Law, told the UK Supreme Court that the authority can, and indeed should, set out the reason. But the Home Office maintains that saying the employee had 'no right to work' is enough. It says nothing indicates that being less specific would invalidate the civil penalty notice given to the restaurant. Zane Malik KC of 39 Essex Chambers argued for the government in the case before the court......