Planning analysis: In Aaron Scott Canham v Calderdale MBC, the Planning Court held that the common law rule against apparent bias does not apply to a local planning authority’s decision whether to issue an enforcement notice under section 172(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). Such a decision is administrative rather than adjudicative, although it remains subject to ordinary public law requirements, including rationality, proper purpose and the prohibition on actual bias. Mr Justice Swift added that, even if the apparent bias test had applied, the repeated involvement of the same council officers would not have led a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

Planning analysis: In City Outdoor Media Ltd v SSHCLG, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal concerning the scope of a discontinuance notice served under regulation 8(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations), SI 2007/783. The court held that, when determining whether such a notice is necessary to remedy substantial injury to amenity or danger to the public, neither a local planning authority nor an inspector is required to assess every class of deemed advertisement consent potentially affected by the notice. Unless an appellant advances a properly evidenced case that alternative forms of deemed consent should remain available, the decision-maker is entitled to determine the appeal by reference to the evidence before it.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved a successful application by the second defendant to stay proceedings in the London Circuit Commercial Court. In the court claim, the claimant alleged that the second defendant had induced the first defendant to breach a contract between the claimant and the first defendant. The claimant argued that the contract entitled him to receive a commission in relation to the transfer of a player from the first defendant, Chelsea Football Club Ltd (Chelsea), to West Ham United Football Club (West Ham). In granting the application for a stay, the court was required to consider whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the claimant and the second defendant, who were both 'Participants' under the Rules issued and promulgated by Football Association Ltd (the FA Rules). The FA Rules contained an arbitration agreement which clearly applied to disputes between Participants and the Football Association, however there was no express agreement between the claimant and the second defendant. Nonetheless, the judge found that there was an implied 'horizontal' agreement between the Participants. By separately acceding to the FA Rules, the claimant and the second defendant were each taken to have assumed a contractual obligation to one another. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, partner, and Ana Margetts, associate, at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP.

Planning analysis: In Kay v SSCHCLG, the court quashed an inspector’s decision dismissing most aspects of an appeal against a local planning authority’s refusal to grant planning permission and listed building consent in relation to a Grade II listed building. The court found that the inspector had erred in law by concluding that there were no public benefits to be weighed against the harm caused by the development to the listed building.

Planning analysis: In Thomas v Lewisham LBC, the court dismissed a judicial review claim of the grant of permission for a student accommodation scheme, finding that the local planning authority had not been wrong to find that the development complied with local plan and London Plan policy despite no binding nominations agreement with a higher education provider (HEP) being in place when permission was issued. It also rejected a separate ground of claim based on the tenant relocation obligations in the section 106 agreement.

In Phoenix Life Assurance Ltd v The Financial Services Authority, the High Court held that the contract for a single premium with-profits policy should be interpreted as a whole so that Guaranteed Minimum Pensions were covered by a nominal capital sum together with any bonuses allotted to the policy.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It covers jurisdiction issues that can arise in IP cases in the UK, with a particular focus on the jurisdiction regime in the EU, and the interpretation of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (Brussels I) and Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)). It also covers court jurisdiction in the UK. It sets out the position in relation to patents, trade marks, copyright and design rights, with links to more specialist notes in those areas of IP where appropriate. This Practice Note introduces concepts relating to jurisdiction only (not applicable law). IP rights are protected on a national or regional territorial basis, but the nature of the subject matter underlying IP (eg inventions, written works, etc) allows in the internet age, almost instantaneous cross-border movement. Determining whether the English court has jurisdiction over an IP infringement action brought before it is therefore a complex issue. General principles IP infringement may involve considerations of tort and/or of contract law (eg the interpretation of a licence). Where

This Practice Note sets out the approach to be taken when determining whether or not the EU courts have jurisdiction to determine an IP dispute, primarily with reference to the regime set out in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast)). It considers the general position in relation to disputes concerning IP rights and then sets out particular issues in relation to patents, trade marks, copyright and design rights (including the specific regimes for EU trade marks (EUTMs) set out in the EU Trade Mark Regulation and EU designs set out in the EU Design Regulation). IP rights are protected on a national or regional territorial basis, but the nature of the underlying subject matter (eg inventions, written works etc) means that there can be almost instantaneous cross-border movement, particularly in the digital age. Determining whether a particular court has jurisdiction can therefore be a complex issue. This Practice Note considers the strategic issues that parties should take into account when contemplating proceedings. For more information about court jurisdiction and IP in the UK following

This Practice Note sets out the approach to be taken when determining whether or not the UK courts have jurisdiction to determine an IP dispute. It considers the general position in relation to disputes concerning IP rights and then sets out particular issues in relation to patents, trade marks, copyright and design rights. The main focus is on the courts of England and Wales (sometimes referred to as the English courts for convenience), but there is also discussion of allocation between the various UK courts. IP rights are protected on a national or regional territorial basis, but the nature of the underlying subject matter (eg inventions, written works, etc) means that there can be almost instantaneous cross-border movement, particularly in the digital age. Determining whether a particular court has jurisdiction can therefore be a complex issue. The legal position in relation to jurisdiction has changed substantially following the UK’s exit from the EU. Given that this area of law is evolving, this Practice Note is intended to provide a basic overview of the key principles

Private Client analysis: The Court of Protection held that a 19-year-old woman with cerebral palsy, autism and multiple personas lacked capacity to make decisions about pregnancy termination and contraception. Applying the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) framework, the court found termination and contraceptive implant were in her best interests given her deteriorating mental health and self-harm risks. Notable for practitioners, despite unanimous agreement among parties, the Trust sought court approval rather than relying on MCA 2005, ss 5 and 6, demonstrating how judicial oversight can help preserve therapeutic relationships in complex medical cases. Practical implications written by Sophie Caseley of Garden Court Chambers.

Family analysis: Mr Justice Peel provides a user-friendly judgment confirming that paragraph 8 of the Financial Remedies Court Primary Principles document (which applies following an unsuccessful private FDR (pFDR)) goes too far, and that the court is not entitled to know whether offers were made or an indication given at a pFDR. The judgment is a corrective to that paragraph, and to its previous interpretation at circuit judge level, which may have led to a practice developing in some quarters of litigants ‘asserting that the pFDR ended when the other party left after the indication without further negotiating’. It is also further authority on the privileged nature of the FDR (and pFDR) process, and makes clear that only the basic factual details of the appointment are disclosable, ie whether or not it took place, whether both parties attended, the identities of the evaluator, where it took place and the duration. Written by David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has published its updated ‘Guide to Proceedings’, which consolidates and clarifies procedural guidance on criminal appeals under the Criminal Procedure Rules, Criminal Practice Directions and relevant legislation. The guide reflects the continued move to digital working with the Criminal Appeal Office operating a fully paperless system and requiring applications and supporting documents to be lodged electronically using hyperlinks to relevant material rather than direct uploads to the Digital Case System. Applications for leave to appeal must generally be lodged within 28 days using Form NG accompanied by clear, concise and properly particularised grounds and extensions of time will only be granted where there are cogent reasons for delay. The update also incorporates amendments introduced by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025, including the requirement that certain appeals be lodged directly with the Registrar, and provides clarification on terminology and updated time limit provisions. The Guide further addresses applications to adduce fresh evidence the duties of fresh representatives and retrial procedure following recent authority, including R v Layden [2025] UKSC 12. Overall, the guide reinforces the need for strict procedural compliance and careful preparation to ensure the efficient progression of appeals.