Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that a payment made by a company director to a High Court Enforcement Agent (HCEA) under pressure and using his personal debit card was a payment made in his own personal capacity and did not discharge a judgment debt owed by the company. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division has published its annual report for the period October 2023 to September 2024. Vice-President of the Court, Lord Justice Holroyde, notes a continued increase in the number of cases handled, alongside growing variety and complexity in the matters brought before the Court. The report underscores the ongoing efforts of the Registrar and Criminal Appeal Office staff in maintaining smooth operations and delivering high-quality service to court users and the public. Lord Justice Holroyde also commends the diligence of counsel and solicitors in case preparation and the quality of advocacy presented before the full court. The comprehensive report provides an overview of the Court's work during the specified period, offering insights into the evolving landscape of criminal appeals in England and Wales.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division has published its annual report for the period October 2024 to September 2025. In his foreword, Lord Justice Edis—who assumed the role of Vice-President in October 2025—observes a slight decrease in the number of applications received during the reporting period, alongside an increase in case complexity. The report highlights several key developments. There has been an increase in Attorney General references regarding unduly lenient sentences and a rise in applications for leave to appeal from litigants in person, which has contributed to longer waiting times, particularly for applications pending allocation to a single judge.

Pensions analysis: This case is an important reminder from the Court of Appeal that occupational pension benefits cannot be assigned, commuted or surrendered; no charge or set-off can be exercised against them; an agreement to effect any of those things is unenforceable; and, no order can be made by any court restraining the person from receiving that pension unless it falls under one of the limited exceptions set out in section 91(5) of the Pensions Act 1995 (PA 1995). It is essential reading for those who practice insolvency, and though the decision will not come as a surprise to pensions practitioners, it will be of significant interest in respect of its interpretation of PA 1995, s 91. This decision overturns the decision of the High Court in in Re Lloyds British Testing Ltd (in liquidation) [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch). Written by Elizabeth Grace, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.

Property Disputes analysis: This case concerned the legal test that applies when a party asserts that a tenancy has been surrendered by operation of law by way of a surrender and regrant to a third party. Having considered the development of the principle of surrender and regrant from the decision of Lyon v Reed onwards, the Court of Appeal set out the necessary ingredients for a surrender and regrant to a third party before deciding that no such surrender had taken place in this case. The court also addressed the principles that apply when the court is asked to infer the grant of a tenancy by conduct to a person who is already in occupation. Written by Daniel Crehan, barrister, Five Paper (junior counsel for the successful respondent).

Employment analysis: While there is no implied duty on an employer to act fairly in all contexts, there may be a narrower basis for an implied term that disciplinary processes will be conducted fairly and such a term is not conceptually linked to the implied term of trust and confidence, according to obiter dicta comments by Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Singh in the Court of Appeal, following the earlier comments made by Mrs Justice Simler (as she then was) in Chakrabarty.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The decision concerned an appeal from a decision of Kerr J on a preliminary issue in which he held that the law of England and not Cyprus should be applied to a group of tort claims arising out of alleged assaults said to have taken place in Cyprus 60 years ago. The central issue for determination was whether it was appropriate to apply the ‘flexible exception’ to the common law rule of ‘double actionability’ as identified in Boys v Chaplin [1971] A.C. 356. The importance of the issue arose from the fact that Cyprus limitation law imposes a non-extendable limitation period of two years and so if Cyprus law applied (whether alone or in conjunction with English Law), the claims would be time-barred. The Court of Appeal held that both the law of Cyprus and the law of England and Wales applied for the purpose of determining limitation in respect of the tort claims. Written by Colleen Hanley, barrister at 20 Essex St Chambers, London.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The respondents in this case had devised a complex fraud, resulting in attempts to enforce default judgments against the appellant, AXA Insurance UK plc (Axa). The fraud was unravelled, and Axa avoided any insurance loss, but incurred significant costs. At first instance, Axa recovered compensatory damages in respect of those costs. However, the lower court dismissed Axa’s claim for exemplary damages, on the basis that such an award was only available where the tortiously-achieved profit could not have been fully recovered through an award of compensatory damages. The Court of Appeal held that this was to look at things ‘through the wrong end of the telescope’ and that this case, involving ‘outrageous conduct and abusive behaviour’, was in fact a paradigm case for the award of exemplary damage. Each respondent was accordingly ordered to pay a further £20,000 to Axa in exemplary damages. Written by David Willink, barrister in Lamb Chambers.

Employment analysis: An employment tribunal did not err in rejecting a claim by a barrister who holds gender critical beliefs that Stonewall, an LGBT campaign charity, caused or induced her chambers to discriminate against her on the grounds of her protected belief, contrary to section 111 of the Equality Act 2010. It was open to the employment tribunal to conclude that the acts of the chambers broke the chain of causation between Stonewall’s complaint and the discrimination suffered by Ms Bailey. The dominant and effective cause of the detriment was GCC's investigation, not anything done by Stonewall, according to the Court of Appeal.

Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal (‘Court’) allowed the appeal brought by Surrey County Council (SCC) in connection with the judge’s decision dated 15 December 2023 permitting a claim for judicial review and set aside the judge’s three declarations dated 20 December 2023. One of these declarations being that SCC owed a duty to accommodate BC, a 17-year-old child, under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). The court determined the judge was wrong to conclude that a duty was owed under section 20 of the Act, or that BC was in fact being accommodated by SCC under section 20 and opined that the judge had erred in determining that SCC had acted with (Wednesbury) unreasonableness. This case provides a solid overview of the timeframes involved for bringing a claim for judicial review, confirmation of when a local authority is dutybound to accommodate a child under ChA 1989, s 20 and clarity on the alternative methods that can be employed to children not deemed a ‘child in need’ and not requiring accommodation. Written by Paul Ridout, partner at HCR Law.

The National Archives has published the judgment in British Standards Institution v RRR Manufacturing Pty Ltd, R (on the application of) [2024] EWCA Civ 530. RRR applied for judicial review of British Standards Institution's (BSI) decision to suspend its certificate to sell a medical device and applied for interim relief, which BSI appealed. BSI highlighted three issues on its appeal—What is the nature of the court’s jurisdiction to grant interim relief on an application for judicial review? Did the Judge apply the relevant principles?; What is the court’s approach, on an application for judicial review, to the grant of a mandatory injunction requiring a decision-maker to make a particular decision? Did the Judge apply the relevant principles?; and What is the court’s approach to ordering a defendant who has unsuccessfully resisted an application for interim relief to pay the costs of that application in any event? Did the Judge apply the relevant principles? The court granted an appeal on all three grounds.

The Court of Appeal has updated its case tracker for Civil Appeals to note that it has granted an application for permission to appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in Seiler and another v the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) [2023] UKUT 270 (TCC).