Powers of the local authority The local authority has powers to deal with dangerous buildings under a number of statutes: • section 77 of the Building Act 1984 (BA 1984)—court order • BA 1984, s 78—emergency measures • BA 1984, s 76—defective premises • BA 1984, s 79—ruinous and dilapidated buildings and neglected sites • section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990)—statutory nuisance • sections 21 and 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974)—improvement and prohibition notice Meaning of 'dangerous building or structure' The term 'dangerous structure' covers any building, part of a building or other structure, where it poses a serious danger to the public. Examples of ways that the building or structure could be dangerous include loose slates/tiles, vehicle damage/collapsing walls, loose chimneys, leaning garden walls, broken hoarding, etc. Buildings or structures can become dangerous as a result of poor maintenance, fire, storm, vehicle impact or explosion. The term does not cover buildings which are simply dilapidated or run down (for example due to

Dangerous dogs are those that pose a risk to the public and other animals. The breeding or ownership of certain types of dog classified as dangerous is prohibited (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, ss 1 and 2).

For detailed guidance on dangerous driving in cases involving a fatality, see Practice Note: Death by dangerous driving. The offence of dangerous driving Dangerous driving contrary to section 2 of the Road traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) is an offence that can be tried in either the Crown Court or the magistrates’ court. Elements of the dangerous driving offence To be guilty of an offence a person must: • drive • a mechanically propelled vehicle • on a road or other public place • dangerously Causing injury by dangerous driving The offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving is prohibited by RTA 1988, s 1A. This is an either way offence. The elements of the offence are the same as for dangerous driving with the additional element that the driving must cause serious injury. Serious injury means physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. ‘Driving’ for these purposes A person is considered to be driving if the vehicle,

The assessment of dangerousness is a statutory part of the law of sentencing for specified offences.

Commercial analysis: When people buy or consume orange juice few will think about what is left after the juice has been extracted. The Commercial Court dealt with a dispute between a Greek company and a Brazilian company concerning a product being the orange pulp wash. There were many issues concerning the non-acceptance of the product by the defendant which the claimant had agreed to sell. The issues between the parties included, in addition to the main allegation of non-acceptance, termination of the contract with claims and counter-claims as to repudiatory breach. In the end the court held that there had been no agreed price for specific consignments of the product. This is important because it emphasises that failing to agree a price in a contract for the sale of goods and, instead, providing that the price was to be agreed constitutes no more than that so that there is no enforceable contract. Written by Fred Philpott, barrister of Gough Square Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Chancery Division has held that deliberately understating the value of a number of claims so as to reduce the court fee payable on issue amounted to an abuse of process but that this was not sufficient for the court to strike out the claims. However, the ‘appropriate court fee’ not having been paid meant that the claims were not ‘brought’ for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and CPR 7.2, and so summary judgment was granted in respect of those claims where the ‘appropriate fee’ was not paid before the limitation period expired.

Family analysis: The wife’s unsuccessful Daniels v Walker application to adduce her own expert evidence regarding the historical valuation of a company failed on account of its being made too late and being unlikely to have a material impact on the substantive proceedings. It was further held that the matter of further expert evidence concerning the historical valuation of a business interest would only be of limited value regarding the issue of post-separation accrual, Mr Justice Peel noting that the difference (circa £1.6m) in the equivalent expert valuation figures was ‘relatively small’, being £18.9m (per the single joint expert) and £20.5m (per the wife’s disallowed expert). Financial remedy practitioners will find the judgment contains a helpful and concise summary of Daniels v Walker principles in the context of matrimonial finance cases, and specifically the often-vexed area of historical business valuations. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the implications of the decision.

The Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU has published its programme for 1 July to 31 December 2025, outlining its priorities and direction under the presidency's focus on ‘A strong Europe in a changing world’. The presidency aims to strengthen the EU’s capacity to act autonomously amid growing global instability by focusing on security, competitiveness and the green transition. Legislative efforts will prioritise bolstering defence, economic resilience, and climate neutrality. Additionally, the presidency seeks to reduce regulatory burdens and promote EU enlargement. Full details are available in the programme document and more details can be found below.

IP analysis: In a significant UK ruling in Generics (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca AB, the High Court of England and Wales provided a comprehensive restatement of how inventive step and sufficiency are assessed in the UK in light of the concept of ‘plausibility’. Ian Jones, partner, of Gill Jennings & Every LLP considers the court’s ruling.

Optical fibre already deployed (eg in ducts), but not active (unlit), ie without any electronics or optoelectronics operating at both ends.

Dark patterns describes user interface and design techniques intentionally structured to manipulate or unduly influence user behaviour, for example to obtain consent, drive purchasing decisions, or discourage exercising data protection or consumer rights. The term is primarily descriptive rather than a defined legal concept in UK or Irish legislation, but is increasingly used by regulators, courts and practitioners in the context of consumer protection, e‑commerce and data protection law. In practice, dark patterns may include pre-ticked boxes, confusing consent flows, misleading button hierarchies, obstruction of cancellation processes, or exploitative “choice architecture” that nudges users away from privacy-friendly or consumer-protective options. In the UK (including England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and Ireland, such practices are typically assessed under existing rules on unfair commercial practices, misleading or aggressive practices, transparency, and valid consent (notably under UK GDPR and the EU GDPR in Ireland). Regulators such as the CMA, ICO and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission have identified dark patterns as a compliance risk, and their presence may evidence unfairness, invalid consent or lack of transparency, exposing traders and controllers to enforcement action, fines and contractual or statutory claims.

Dark web describes parts of the internet that are intentionally hidden and accessible only through specialist software (for example, Tor), often using encryption and anonymisation to obscure users’ identities and locations. In UK and Irish legal practice it is a descriptive, non‑technical term rather than a defined concept in legislation or case law, but it is widely used in criminal, regulatory, cybercrime, data protection and investigatory contexts.The dark web is frequently associated with serious criminal activity, including drugs and weapons trafficking, child sexual abuse material, fraud, identity theft, ransomware, money laundering and marketplaces for stolen data. Use of the dark web is not inherently unlawful; its legal significance turns on the underlying conduct, applicable offences and investigatory powers.For practitioners in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the term commonly arises in: cybercrime prosecutions; digital forensics; warrants and production orders; interception and surveillance; proceeds of crime/confiscation; and data breach and privacy litigation. Usage is broadly consistent across these jurisdictions, though the relevant statutory frameworks (for example, investigatory powers, computer misuse, terrorism and organised crime legislation) differ in detail.