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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Original news Tongue v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and another [2017] EWHC 2508 ( Ch), [2017] All ER ( D) 81 ( Oct) No relationship of bailment was formed between the first respondent, the RSPCA, and the appellant, T, when T allowed the RSPCA to go onto the land to look after the cattle following T’s convictions for causing the herd unnecessary suffering. As a result, the RSPCA did not assume a duty of care to T regarding the safeguarding of the cattle, nor did it acquire any corresponding entitlement to recover its expenditure from T... What was the background to this case? This was an unusually troubling and distressing matter. Mr Tongue was a farmer with a sizeable landholding, yet a persistent offender under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, having been found guilty on numerous occasions of...
What is the significance of this case? Why is it important for practitioners? On 10 August 2017, at a hearing at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, Green Live admitted two offences contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277 (the Regulations). The prosecution concerned the issuing of supposed ‘licences to occupy’ when the arrangements were in fact tenancies. Thought to be the first matter of its kind in the UK, its significance lies in showing that local authorities can, and will, act where agents or landlords attempt to evade obligations to afford tenants security of tenure and to protect deposits. While tenants have long resisted possession claims and pursued statutory penalties for failures to safeguard deposits, this case makes clear that landlords and agents engaging in such conduct risk criminal prosecution as well as civil...
Oates v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 2716 ( Admin) What is the significance of the decision for authorities and developers? This ruling examines when those taking decisions should treat an enforcement notice as void, instead of relying on the power in section 176(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( TCPA 1990) to put right a flaw in a notice. The court confirmed that the obiter remarks in Miller- Mead v MHLG [1963] 2 QB 196, viewed in a fair and objective way, signify that where a contravention of TCPA 1990, s 173(1) and (3) is made out—namely, the enforcement notice fails to identify the alleged breach of planning control and the steps the addressee must take to cure it—then nullity must follow. By contrast, where the deficiency does not amount to such a clear...
Original news UBS AG ( London Branch) and another v Kommunale Wasserwerke Leipzig; UBS Ltd v Depfa Bank plc; UBS AG ( London Branch) v Landesbank Baden- Württemberg [2017] EWCA Civ 1567, [2017] All ER ( D) 119 ( Oct). The Court of Appeal ( Civil Division) concluded that the judge had been wrong to decide that the financial advisers were acting as the claimants’ agents when arranging for their client, the principal defendant, to enter into a single tranche collateralised debt obligation ( STCDO), and to treat any bribe as within that agency, thereby fixing the claimants with legal responsibility despite their lack of knowledge. The court further held that, because the claimants dishonestly assisted the advisers’ abuse of their fiduciary duty to the principal defendant, the bribe tainted the claimants’ conscience, making it inequitable for them to enforce the STCDO secured through that...
Original news Brown v Bower [2017] EWHC 2637 ( QB) Key point The judge observed (at para [44] of the judgment) that this matter vividly exemplifies the difficulty and complexity of deciding whether conduct is, when measured against society’s overall standards, immoral. In particular, he remarked (at para [46]) that the question of whether it is defamatory to assert of a person that they have paid people for consensual sex is contentious, and remains a matter for debate in various quarters still. The court was not invited to determine whether the meaning of the impugned statement was defamatory at common law, but the......
Original news Interserve Construction Ltd v Hitachi Zosen Inova AG [2017] EWHC 2633 ( TCC), [2017] All ER ( D) 82 ( Nov) What are the practical implications of this case? Although the outcome rested largely on the parties’ bespoke terms, the case underscores the need to examine termination provisions with care both when contracting and before attempting to terminate. It also indicates that, when interpreting the parties’ chosen wording, the court is unlikely to construe it in a manner that fails to give operative effect to expressions such as ‘subject to’. What was the background? Hitachi, the EPC contractor for an energy from waste plant in Worcestershire, engaged Interserve as sub‑contractor. Dissatisfied with Interserve’s performance and delay, Hitachi served a notice under sub‑clause 43.1 of the sub‑contract, invoking grounds (h) and (q). Those grounds provided that, if Hitachi failed to proceed regularly or...
Original news Ivey v Genting Casinos ( UK) Ltd (trading as Crockfords) [2017] UKSC 67, [2017] All ER ( D) 134 ( Oct) The Supreme Court rejected a professional gambler’s appeal from the Court of Appeal’s ruling that he was not entitled to his winnings from the respondent casino, as he had cheated. The court held that dishonesty is not an additional legal component of cheating in gambling. It found that the first-instance judge’s conclusion, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, that the appellant’s conduct amounted to cheating, was unassailable, and that seeking to define cheating would be very unwise. Further, it ruled that the second limb of the test in R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689 did not correctly state the law and directions based upon it should no longer be given. What was the background to the case? The...
Original news Ivey v Genting Casinos ( UK) Ltd (t/a Crockfords) [2017] UKSC 67, [2017] All ER ( D) 134 ( Oct). Dishonesty is not a separate legal ingredient of cheating in gambling. The Supreme Court so decided, dismissing the professional gambler appellant’s appeal against the first‑instance ruling (upheld by the Court of Appeal) that he was not entitled to his ‘winnings’ from the respondent casino because he had cheated. The court considered the judge’s finding—that the appellant’s acts amounted to cheating—unassailable, and cautioned that seeking a definition of cheating would be unwise. It also ruled that the second limb of the R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689 test does not accurately state the law and directions founded on it should no longer be given. See: Supreme Court overrules Ghosh test in ‘most significant criminal law decision in a...
Original news Raithatha (as liquidator of Halal Monitoring Committee Ltd) v Baig and others [2017] EWHC 2059, [2017] All ER ( D) 244 ( Jul). The case involved a company established as a community initiative to oversee the production of Halal meat. When founded in 2004 by its first director, BH, it was intended to operate on a not-for-profit basis. By 2008, however, the company had built up liabilities it could not meet. It did not register for VAT until 2011 and, in April 2012, it went into insolvent liquidation. On winding up, there were 14 directors. The applicant, R, was appointed as liquidator. R brought proceedings concerning non-payment of the VAT assessment. He alleged that, by failing to secure VAT registration until 2011 and by not levying or recovering VAT on services supplied, the directors breached their fiduciary obligations to the company or failed to...
What is the background to this case? In R (on the application of CXF (acting by his mother, his litigation friend)) v Central Bedfordshire Council and another, [2017] EWHC 2311 ( Admin), Dinah Rose QC, acting as a Deputy High Court Judge, examined the operation of section 117 of Me HA 1983. This framework supports people discharged after compulsory detention under Me HA 1983. The entitlement derives from Me HA 1983, s 117, widely known as ‘section 117 aftercare’. Such aftercare is supplied without charge, regardless of financial means, unlike much social services support. Funding is shared between health services, through CCGs, and social services, via local authority adult social services departments ( LAs). Certain provisions do not fall within section 117 aftercare: these are services seen as meeting only basic needs, lacking a sufficient nexus with an individual’s mental health disorder. The notion of...
Original news Watt v Dignan and others [2017] EWCA Civ 1390 The central question was whether the Dignans held enforceable easements to use the toilet facilities within unit 27 on an industrial estate. Unit 27 belonged to Mr Watt. It was accepted that these rights had been granted to the Dignans’ predecessors in title, as owners of units 26A and 29, by two conveyances dated 27 September 1985 and 16 April 1987. The further issue was whether they were now prevented by estoppel from asserting those rights. The Recorder at first instance found that they were not, and Mr Watt appealed to the Court of Appeal. What are the practical implications of this case? Although the decision is fact specific, it offers helpful reminders for Property Disputes practitioners about the lines of argument advanced, the fall-out where a case different from that pleaded is pursued, and the...
Original news Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 What is the significance of the decision for authorities and developers? This ruling offers a clear restatement of how a fallback scheme should be treated as a material consideration in planning decisions. The Court of Appeal underlined that courts should shun rigid or mechanistic tests and remember the breadth for a lawful exercise of planning judgment by the decision-maker. Because fallback scenarios depend heavily on their particular facts, the application of planning judgment is paramount. In this instance, there was no legal misdirection in giving weight to the fallback available under permitted development rights. The Court of Appeal also affirmed the High Court’s view that, for the purposes of Class Q in Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning ( General Permitted Development) ( England) Order 2015, SI...
What crisis is the UK currently facing in terms of housing? Anyone paying even minimal attention recognises the shortage of truly affordable homes. Aspiring first-time buyers struggle ever more to step onto the property ladder, rents continue to rocket, and homelessness is climbing. Earlier in 2017, trade union campaigners and community figures issued an open letter demanding more social housing and condemning the ‘severe harm’ caused by ‘precarious, unaffordable, substandard’ homes. They sensibly stressed that building genuinely affordable dwellings is essential, and that this hinges on sustained government funding and resolve. In May 2017, Inside Housing reported that fewer than half of Right to Buy replacements qualify as social housing. Inside Housing further noted that Sheffield Hallam University, for the Consortium of Associations in the South East, warned that government proposals to cap housing benefit at Local Housing Allowance levels would exclude 84% of young...
When and why is the new DIFC Courts Technology and Construction Division ( TCD) opening? By way of context, Dubai operates under a civil law framework, with its court system governed by the UAE Civil Procedures Code. Yet Dubai also hosts the Dubai International Financial Centre ( DIFC), a financial free zone. The DIFC constitutes a distinct ‘offshore’ common law jurisdiction, with its own courts modelled on the English Commercial Court, and is separate from the ‘onshore’ Dubai courts. On 15 August 2017, following a public consultation in March and April 2017, the DIFC Courts confirmed the TCD would launch in October 2017. As to the rationale, construction is a major industry in the United Arab Emirates and across the Middle East. Disputes are frequent, often high in value and technically intricate, and they arise regularly. A specialist forum to hear such cases is...
Original news Re V (a child) (recognition of foreign adoption) [2017] EWHC 1733 ( Fam), [2017] All ER ( D) 59 ( Jul) The applicants, Nigerian citizens temporarily present in the UK, sought recognition of a Nigerian adoption order. Having reviewed the full range of criteria relevant to acknowledging adoptions made abroad, the Family Court granted the application. Why does this matter, and what should practitioners take from it? The decision engages the doctrine of comity in the context of recognising adoption orders from other jurisdictions. Where the order originates in a state that has ratified the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, it is automatically recognised as a Chapter 4 ‘overseas adoption’ ( Adoption and Children Act 2002, ss 66, 87; Adoption ( Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013, SI...
Original news Nahajec v Fowle (acting as executor of the estate of Nahajec deceased and as beneficiary of the estate) [2017] Lexis Citation 270, [2017] All ER ( D) 42 ( Aug) The claimant’s father’s will left the entirety of his estate to the defendant, providing no reasonable financial provision for the claimant. Having weighed every matter in section 3 of the Inheritance ( Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 ( I( PFD) A 1975), the County Court concluded that the reasonable sum, duly capitalised for maintenance, to be received, was £30,000. What was the background to this case? The deceased left his estate to his friend, Stephen Fowle, whom he also appointed as executor of the estate. A note accompanying the will highlighted the absence of contact with his three children and his view that they were...
Original news Dean v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2017] EWHC 1998 ( Admin); [2017] All ER ( D) 72 ( Aug). The Planning Court concluded that the grant of a PEDL under section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998 ( PA 1998) was not entirely constrained by the statutory licensing code, so the Secretary of State could agree to alter the licence terms. Consequently, it rejected the claimant’s case that the deed varying the licence was ultra vires, and dismissed his application for judicial review. What was the background to the case? In 2008 the defendant issued a PEDL conferring exclusive rights on the licensees to search, drill for and recover hydrocarbons within a defined geographic area. The licence period was split into three stages: a stage for the licensee to undertake the agreed works programme of seismic and...
Original news Re Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (in administration) [2017] All ER ( D) 44 ( Aug), [2017] EWHC 2031 ( Ch). In a significant ruling, the court endorsed a plan by the joint administrators to appoint a director to LBEL, already in administration, so that surplus monies could be paid to its sole member, Lehman Brothers Holdings plc ( LBH), rather than to a creditor. The proposal was found to be lawful, practical and advantageous. The application outlined a pragmatic route to unlock value for the member once unsecured debts had been met. How, then, did the administrators approach distributions to members? The principal entities were LBEL, its parent LBH, and an associated company, Lehman Brothers Limited ( LBL), each in administration. After paying LBEL’s unsecured creditors 100 pence in the pound, LBEL’s administrators retained a substantial surplus. They were, however, unable to...
Original news Singh v Weayou [2017] EWHC 2102 ( QB) Key point This ruling highlights the critical need to provide the court with honest and coherent evidence at all times......
Original news Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 ( Comm), [2017] All ER ( D) 198 ( Jul) Briefly, what was the background to this case and the issues before the court? Jeffrey Blue, an investment banker, spent an evening drinking with Mike Ashley, founder of Sports Direct, at the Horse & Groom in London’s West End. The night was arranged to present Mr Ashley to the sales team of Sports Direct’s potential new corporate brokers. As the night wore on, and beer was taken by everyone save one attendee, talk moved to Sports Direct’s share price. Mr Blue contended that, during that gathering, Mr Ashley pledged to pay him £15m if he could lift the Sports Direct share price to £8—about twice its level then—within three years. The issue before Leggatt J was whether, in that pub, Mr Ashley and Mr Blue...
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
