Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In a remarkable decision, the English court granted a prohibitory injunction and declarations requested by an English company (Cape) to restrain and limit the actions of a receiver purportedly appointed over it by a South Carolina court. The court accepted that the receivership appointment was not capable of being recognised or enforced in England and Wales, because there was, on the facts, no ‘sufficient connection’ between Cape and the jurisdiction of South Carolina. The court went further and held that the consequence of this finding, and the findings that the US receiver was causing harm to Cape and its interests, was that it would grant the declarations that the US receivership had no legal effect worldwide and grant the injunction prohibiting the US receiver from acting. Written by Hannah Drozdz, legal director PSL at Gateley Legal.

Private Client analysis: The NHS Trust sought a declaration under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) that it was lawful and in the best interests of a pregnant 35 year old woman NR to have a termination of a pregnancy. NR was 22 weeks pregnant and was detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983). The case came to the Court of Protection with NR represented via her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor as she had been expressing ambivalence as to carrying her baby to term. The court went as far as to make a declaration that a care plan which set out the arrangements for the termination of the pregnancy was lawful. The court considered it was not appropriate to go further and declare that it was in the woman’s best interests to have the termination. Priority was given that recognised the woman’s ability to assert her own autonomy with the support of staff. Written by Tim Baldwin, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: Ms Clare Ambrose, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division, declined to make an order enforcing a domestic arbitration award under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The award had been made by a tribunal of the London Beth Din (Court of the Chief Rabbi) in a property dispute. The tribunal had ordered specific performance of a contract (‘Heskem’) for the transfer of the property. The judge found that the parties had agreed the application of Jewish law to the procedure and that the Beth Din consequently had power to order the transfer, overcoming the prohibition on orders for specific performance relating to land in AA 1996, s 48(5)(b). However, exercising her discretion under AA 1996, s 66, she decided that it would not be in the interests of justice for the order to be granted because new evidence was inconsistent with the case put before the tribunal.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court dismissed a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). Despite finding that the statutory test under IA 1986, s 423 was satisfied, the court declined to grant relief because the defendants acted in good faith without knowledge of wrongful purpose, and the assets received later became worthless. The judgment provides important guidance on IA 1986, s 423 claims, particularly the factors weighing against relief, even where the requisite elements are made out. Practical implications written by Daniel Lewis, barrister of Wilberforce Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore High Court has considered issues arising from a challenge against arbitral awards on the ground that there was no contract between the parties. The court also clarified that a party which deliberately allowed the arbitration to proceed in its absence should not be permitted to use that fact as a reason to apply for oral testimony to be given and cross-examined in challenge proceedings in court. Benedict Teo & Nicholas Poon of Drew & Napier discuss the judgment.

Law360, London: The backlog of criminal court cases in England and Wales reached a record of nearly 440,000 between April and June 2025, as new cases continued to outpace final decisions and the justice system remained strained by chronic underfunding.

Precedent R is the standard template for a budget discussion report, which must be filed in accordance with the provisions in CPR 3.13(2): ‘In the event that a party files and exchanges a budget under paragraph (1), all other parties, not being litigants in person, must file an agreed budget discussion report no later than 7 days before the first case management conference.’ Costs budgeting only applies in multi-track cases of a certain value, unless the court orders otherwise, which appears to be the case for the purposes of this question. It maybe that the judge was not aware that under the rules the deadline for filing the budget discussion report is fixed to the date of a costs management conference (CMC) or the judge may have considered that such reports were not required and consequently

Planning analysis: The claimants challenged a development consent order (DCO) granted for the Immingham Eastern ‘roll-on roll-off’ Terminal (IERRT), a major ferry terminal project at the Port of Immingham. The High Court dismissed the challenge, confirming that the environmental statement (ES) was adequate and that the assessment of adequacy falls on the decision maker and not the court unless it is Wednesbury unreasonable. The judge also endorsed the SoS’s reliance on the ‘River Regime’ to manage any navigational risks that the ES could not assess. The second ground relating to bias was found to be unfounded and subsequently dismissed. Written by Sarah Fitzpatrick, head of Planning at Norton Rose Fulbright.

Pensions analysis: Simon Salzedo QC and Stephen Midwinter QC, barristers at Brick Court Chambers, examine the High Court’s decision in Keymed (Medical and Industrial Equipment) Ltd v Hillman and another establishing that the directors had not conspired, or acted in breach of duty, to cause their interests to be preferred over those of the claimant company by making alterations to the company pension scheme.

Planning analysis: In R (Mehta) v RB Kensington & Chelsea, the court dismissed a challenge to a decision by RB Kensington & Chelsea to revoke a certificate of lawful proposed use or development (CLOPUD) on the basis that the information submitted with the application was materially false. CLOPUDs are seldom revoked and challenges to decisions revoking CLOPUDs are rarer still. The case illustrates the principles that apply in the exercise of the power to revoke a CLOPUD Written by John Litton KC, barrister, Landmark Chambers.

Planning analysis: The court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero’s decision to grant a development consent order for the Net Zero Teesside Carbon Capture Use and Storage project, confirming that challenges to such decisions can only proceed on points of law. Dr Andrew Boswell (the Claimant) has challenged a number of recent nationally significant infrastructure projects on climate change grounds. Written by Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, barrister at Francis Taylor Building.

Commercial analysis: The case of Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry v Uniserve Ltd was a dispute arising out of agreements relating to the procurement of Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) including medical masks during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. It raised a number of contractual issues, including misrepresentation and authority to act on behalf of another individual/entity and to bind them legally. Written by Iain Sharp, partner, and Reema Shour, professional support lawyer, both at Hill Dickinson LLP.