Local Government analysis: The High Court held that a local authority acted unlawfully in failing to treat a bereaved child as ‘looked after’ under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) despite having arranged and sustained the child’s living situation following the death of his parents. The court rejected the authority’s reliance on a purported private fostering arrangement, finding that it had orchestrated and maintained the placement while attempting retrospectively characterise it as a private fostering or family arrangement to avoid statutory responsibility. The decision emphasises that a local authority, which houses a child in a council home, cannot say that a child does not ‘require accommodation’ because they themselves are providing a child with accommodation. The case provides important clarification on the limits of informal care arrangements, reinforces the centrality of substance over form in determining looked-after status and highlights the risks to authorities of attempting to sidestep statutory duties through administrative characterisation. Written by Kelly Everett, senior solicitor at Coram Children’s Legal Centre.

Personal Injury analysis: Neil Block QC, barrister at 9 Essex Chambers, examines a High Court decision that although a bed which the defendant sold to the claimant had been missing parts, her fall from the bed had been an accident, so the defendant was not liable for the devastating personal injury she had sustained.

Local Government analysis: In continuing several local authority injunctions against named defendants and persons unknown for car-cruising and associated nuisance, Mr Justice Ritchie helpfully summarised the proper approach to whether such injunctions as against persons unknown should be continued on a review as prescribed by Wolverhampton City Council & others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others (‘the Wolverhampton case’). The case assimilates the numerous factors to which the court must have regard (and which the parties ought to address in evidence and submissions) by reference to the decisions in Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown, the Wolverhampton case and MBR Acres Ltd and others v McGivern. Written by Stephanie Smith, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Property analysis: This case concerned the alleged right to discharge waste (grey) water from the bathroom of one property (owned by the claimant) into a drainpipe of the neighbouring property (owned by the defendant). The County Court in Leeds considered a conveyance from 1934 and decided that, as a matter of construction, an express easement did not arise. However, it was satisfied that there had been sufficient use since at least 1978 to give rise to a prescriptive easement. Accordingly, the court granted the successful claimant an injunction, a declaration and damages. Written by Christopher Buckingham, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC) made a rare finding that it was able to determine whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a dispute under an arbitration agreement, in an application made pursuant to section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (Arbitration Act). The underlying dispute concerned a currency swap agreement between Barclays Bank plc (Barclays) and VEB.RF (VEB), in which Barclays claimed it was lawfully unable to pay a sum that would otherwise be due and owing to VEB under the contract as VEB had been sanctioned. After VEB commenced court proceedings in Russia against Barclays, Barclays obtained an anti-suit injunction (ASI) preventing the dispute from being heard otherwise than by LCIA Arbitration, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Barclays later sought to amend the ASI to allow the dispute to be heard in the LCCC, arguing that the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction because Barclays had exercised its contractual right to require the dispute to be heard by the courts. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, partner, and Ana Margetts, associate, at RPC.

Local Government analysis: Philip Kolvin QC of Cornerstone Barristers, examines the High Court’s decision in R (United Cabbies Group) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court to dismiss the claimant’s application for judicial review of a district judge’s grant of an operator’s licence for London private hire vehicles to the third interested party, Uber. The court found that the judge’s decision had not been tainted by presumed or apparent bias due to her husband’s alleged relationship to Uber.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Bayliss v Saxton, the High Court found that a fair-minded and informed observer would have concluded that there was a real possibility that the circuit judge presiding at the trial of committal proceedings brought against the appellant and his wife by the respondent would not have been able to give the appellant a fair hearing and should therefore have recused himself. Jeffrey Israel, barrister at 5KBW, discusses the implications of the case.

Mealey’s: A District of Columbia federal judge on 17 April 2025 denied the Russian Federation’s motion to dismiss a Ukrainian electricity company’s petition to confirm a Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) award worth more than US$218m for an expropriation of its Crimean investments and denied Russia’s motion to stay litigation pending its Dutch appeal.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The possible links between traumatic brain injury (TBI) and dementia are of increasing interest to academics, clinicians and lawyers. In the case of The Executors of the Estate of the late Geoffrey Charles Ivory v Swale Borough Council, the court had to grapple with the issues in the context of a man who went on to develop dementia in the years following an accident in which he sustained a TBI. The court concluded there was no causal link between the brain injury and dementia. Written by Niall Maclean, a barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk. Niall represented the defendant in Ivory v Swale Borough Council throughout proceedings and at trial.

Planning analysis: In Glenbrook v Wigan MBC, the High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to the grant of outline planning permission for employment development land adjoining the claimant’s site. Although revised access plans had not been published before the planning decision was made, the court held that there had been no material unfairness. The claimant had a fair opportunity to make representations and had in fact done so. The decision illustrates that procedural irregularities in the planning process will not automatically justify judicial review where, viewed in the round, affected parties have had a fair opportunity to make representations.

Planning analysis: The claimant successfully challenged Southwark London Borough Council (the Council)’s decision under section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) to approve a purported non-material amendment to a phased outline permission which inserted the word ‘severable’ into the description of development. The court found that the outline permission was not severable and therefore the amendment was material and ultra vires TCPA 1990, s 96A. This case has significant implications for large development schemes based on historic outline planning permissions. Written by Alex Shattock, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

Planning analysis: In Macintosh Village (Management) Ltd v Manchester City Council, the court refused permission to judicially review a grant of planning permission to replace a multi-storey car park with a mixed-use tower block. The decision clarifies that, where a development site is subject to rights which might have to be bought out by the developer, such as rights of light or a right of way over land to be developed, such rights do not automatically render the project undeliverable and ownership of the land is not usually a material consideration.