Personal Injury analysis: Christopher Johnson, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Goldscheider v Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation to uphold a High Court judge’s finding, which involved the question of if the music industry has a duty to protect its musicians from injuries stemming from high decibel levels.

Banking & Finance analysis: The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal regarding two financial instruments and whether or not those documents created a valid equitable assignment under English Law. By way of background these financial instruments were completed following Commercial Court proceedings in 2016 as part of an ‘Inter-Creditor Settlement’. The Court of Appeal had to consider if an equitable assignment arose which enabled future shareholder distributions to be paid after the winding up of the offshore companies in Panama, which was still a work in progress at the time. Written by Dipti Hunter, partner at Keidan Harrison.

Tax analysis: The Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) that the appellants had an unallowable purpose in being party to loan relationships.

Planning analysis: In Hilltop Experiences v Norfolk CC, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the refusal of judicial review of Norfolk County Council’s grant of planning permission for a replacement household waste recycling centre (HWRC) in the Norfolk Coast National Landscape. Although alternative sites were a mandatory material consideration under the development plan, the officer’s report had expressly recognised the weakness of the site selection exercise and the possibility that suitable sites outside the designation might exist. The committee had not been materially misled.

Planning analysis: In TASC v SOS, the Court of Appeal succinctly analysed two questions which often arise in the context of the appropriate assessment of projects under the Habitats Regulations. The first is whether the infrastructure required for a utilities connection which is necessary for the operation of a development could lawfully be considered a separate project. The court held that this was dependent on the facts and a matter for the decision maker’s judgment and concluded that the Secretary of State’s judgment that the supply of potable water was not part of the nuclear power station project for the purposes of appropriate assessment was lawful. The second issue was whether the Secretary of State should have carried out a cumulative assessment of the two projects. The court held that the assessment of effects of the utilities connection could lawfully take place during the future consenting of the separate scheme. Written by Sarah Sutherland, Practice Development Lawyer for the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Team at Burges Salmon LLP.

Planning analysis: In Boswell v SST, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Dr Boswell against the earlier High Court judgment which held that the Secretary of State had not erred in law in granting three development consent orders (DCOs) for road improvements to the A47 near Norwich. The court found that the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 required a decision maker to assess the likely significant effects on the environment in an appropriate manner, which meant it was a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State. The court held that the Secretary of State’s decision was rational and that the claimant’s argument that the significance of the carbon emissions of each scheme had to be assessed in combination with carbon emissions from the other schemes against the national carbon budgets should be rejected. Written by Elizabeth Dunn, partner, and Sarah Sutherland, practice development lawyer at Burges Salmon LLP.

Tax analysis: In Hippodrome Casino Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer's appeal, finding that its proposed 'floorspace' based method of calculating input tax recovery did not produce a more fair and reasonable apportionment than the partial exemption standard method.

Public Law analysis: The Court of Appeal issued its judgment in Aubrey Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority, concerning an appeal brought under section 70 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (SCA 2022) against the CAT’s judgment of 24 July 2025, which dismissed an application for review of a decision by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) granting two loans to a property developer to invest in residential property development in central Manchester. This is the first case to reach the Court of Appeal under the SCA 2022. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Personal Injury analysis: Laura Johnson, barrister at 1 Chancery Lane, examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Diamond v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust to uphold a High Court judge’s finding. Although a surgeon who had repaired the appellant’s hernia using an abdominal mesh had breached his duty to obtain her informed consent to that procedure, the breach had not caused her injury or damage because she would have opted for the same procedure had the surgeon provided her with all the relevant information.

IP analysis: This is the end of the hard-fought UK battle between Neurim and Mylan. The Court of Appeal upheld Mr Justice Marcus Smith’s decision that the divisional patent was valid and infringed and so Mylan will now be subjected to a final injunction. The battle will continue in the European Patent Office (EPO), particularly as the parties agreed a cross-undertaking in damages in the event that the EPO revoke the patent (meaning Mylan dropped its application to stay the final injunction pending the EPO decision). However, a further challenge to the divisional patent, by Teva, will continue in the Patents Court. This decision demonstrates the difficulty of arguing a new point or elevating a minor point on appeal and is a further demonstration of why in the UK system it is so important to get the right expert and to produce robust evidence. Written by Ian Turner, of counsel at Marks & Clerk Law.

Tax analysis: In Mainpay Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal upheld extended assessment time limits for carelessness and held that intermittent employment under a single contract did not equate to continuous employment. HMRC did need to show sufficient causal link between taxpayer carelessness and loss of tax to support extended time limit assessments, but had done so in this case.

Information Law analysis: This case involved an appeal of a judicial review judgment of the High Court, holding that the government's second attempt to produce an immigration exemption under section 16 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) (‘the Immigration Exemption’) from the rights of data subjects contained in the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Retained Regulation (EU) 201/679 (UK GDPR) was unlawful as it did not comply with Article 23(2)–(3) of the UK GDPR. The appeal was dismissed. The case also draws upon the interpretation of the UK GDPR as retained EU law. The guidance provided by the judge is especially topical given the introduction of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (REUL(RR)A 2023) which alters the legal context which built the foundations of the claim. In the present case, if brought after the implementation of REUL(RR)A 2023, the decision may have been different, as no longer would the claim have relied on the principles of retained EU law. Written by Alexander Dittel, partner and Scarlet Mitchell, paralegal at Wedlake Bell LLP.