The Supreme Court has confirmed that adoption orders are intended to be permanent and cannot be revoked solely on welfare grounds, reinforcing the finality of adoption decisions and clarifying the limited circumstances in which they may be challenged.
The High Court’s decision in McKenzie v First Greater Western Limited highlights the challenges employees face when seeking interim injunctions to stop disciplinary proceedings and offers important guidance on judicial intervention in workplace processes.
The High Court has confirmed that advertisers bear the burden of proving consent when displaying advertisements under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The decision provides important clarity for local authority enforcement and advertisement regulation.
The rise of AI in family courts is reshaping how litigants in person prepare cases. While tools like ChatGPT improve access to justice, courts warn that inaccurate AI-generated content risks misleading proceedings and impacting children’s welfare.
A recent Crown Court case highlights the risks of the “all in it together” argument in joint enterprise murder. This analysis explores secondary liability, intent, and why the key question remains: in it together, but to do what?
The EAT clarifies how employers must prove material factor defences in equal pay claims, stressing a practical approach to indirect discrimination and shifting the burden where disadvantage is shown.
Recent High Court rulings on “conduct” in divorce financial remedies have created uncertainty in applying section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, increasing cost and unpredictability for divorcing parties and underscoring the urgent need for clear statutory reform.
Proposed reforms in England and Wales could remove jury trials for offences carrying sentences under three years, replacing them with judge-only hearings. Supporters cite efficiency and cost savings, while critics warn of weakened civil liberties, reduced public trust, and a profound shift in the future of justice.
A domestic violence prosecution collapsed after the complainant refused to continue giving evidence, prompting the Crown to rely on res gestae. Defence arguments on spontaneity, reliability, and fairness succeeded, leading to not guilty verdicts.
This article explores how tribunals and the EAT assess future loss in unfair dismissal cases, highlighting Polkey reductions, tribunal reasoning, and the need to properly evaluate evidence when setting compensatory awards.
![Highway liability & grass verges: Demetrios Karpasitis v Hertfordshire County Council [2025] EWCA Civ 788](https://chroniclelaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/nils-schirmer-t2gEfUp9iiA-unsplash-768x512.jpg "Highway liability & grass verges: Demetrios Karpasitis v Hertfordshire County Council [2025] EWCA Civ 788")
Court of Appeal guidance on highway liability and evidential fairness in Karpasitis v Hertfordshire CC, analysing s41 and s58 Highways Act duties, GPS inspection evidence, and the treatment of “manifestly incredible” witness statements.
This article examines the revised PD 27A changes to Family Procedure Rules, highlighting how earlier bundle filing and stricter court requirements increase counsel’s professional duties, preparation time, and accountability in financial remedies proceedings.
The Pathfinder Pilot reforms private law children cases by prioritising early risk assessment, safety, and multi-agency support. It replaces the standard process to reduce delays, make proceedings less adversarial, and deliver quicker, more sustainable outcomes for families.
Exceptional hardship appeals offer motorists a final opportunity to avoid a driving ban under the totting-up system, but the threshold is deliberately high. While many applications fail due to weak evidence or poor presentation, a refusal in the Magistrates’ Court is not the end. Drivers have an automatic right to appeal to the Crown Court. With strict rules, tight deadlines, and a more demanding appeal process, expert legal representation is often essential to maximise the chances of success.
Subject access requests are rising, often creating significant time and cost burdens. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 allows only a “reasonable and proportionate search” for personal data, but recent cases, including Ashley v HMRC (2025), show that the effort involved in reviewing and redacting data can also be considered disproportionate. Organisations may therefore argue that both the search and the review/redaction process are unreasonable when compliance would be excessively burdensome.
Be the first to know
Subscribe for our latest legal news in your inbox. All for FREE.