Public Law analysis: The Administrative Court has rejected an attempt to stall the passing of an Act of the Senedd on grounds that Welsh Ministers did not carry out a public consultation prior to initiating the legislation. The judicial review challenge, brought by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain Limited, concerned the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill (‘the Bill’). A statement had been made by the Deputy First Minister of Wales in February 2025 that he believed that it was the right time in Wales to move to ban greyhound racing, a move obviously unwelcome to the Greyhound Board. In April 2025, the Counsel General for Wales confirmed the legislative programme would include primary legislation to ban greyhound racing. The Greyhound Board then issued a judicial review challenge on the grounds that there had been an unlawful failure to consult before introducing the ban. Written by Sarah Whittle, legal director at Blake Morgan LLP.

Public Law analysis: The central issue in this judgment was whether or not a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling should be made pursuant to Article 158(1) of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (WA). Mr Justice Chamberlain noted at para [104] that the ‘jurisdiction to request a ruling from the Court of Justice on the proper interpretation of Article 17(2) arises if and only if a decision on that question is "necessary" to enable me to give judgment on these claims’. The issues that would ultimately need to be decided in this case was set out at para [2]. They related to the claimant’s entitlement to (a) universal credit (challenging a decision of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) (b) to an accelerated route to settled status for victims of domestic violence (challenging a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD)). Written by Jim Hirschmann, barrister at 3PB Barristers.

Public Law analysis: The Administrative Court held that mandatory provisions of the National Framework for the Commissioning of Care and Support in Wales: Code of Practice, issued under section 145 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, are justiciable and can found a public law challenge. Swansea Council’s fee uplift for 2025/26 was unlawful as it failed to demonstrate a proper understanding of providers’ full costs, particularly regarding national insurance changes, and did not act transparently or collaboratively as required by the Code. The decision confirms that authorities must rigorously evidence cost assessments and engagement with providers when setting fees, limiting reliance on affordability alone. Written by Sarah Whittle, legal director at Blake Morgan LLP.

The Administrative Court has made a quashing order in relation to the proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, but has stayed the order pending the government's appeal in judicial review proceedings. The court made and stayed the quashing order on 25 February 2026, having ruled the proscription unlawful in its judgment of 13 February 2026.

An Insolvency Practitioner (IP) appointed by the holder of a debenture secured by a floating charge covering the whole or substantially the whole of the company's assets. Their remit is to realise the assets for the appointer.

When a company breaches the terms of its borrowing from a creditor with a Qualifying Floating charge, or in other circumstances set out in the charge, in limited circumstances that creditor may appoint an administrative receiver to recover the money it is owed.

Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal upheld the Administrative Court's previous decision that the Mayor for Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) did not have to revisit the information audit in the statutory process for deciding a new local bus franchising scheme. Notwithstanding a change in circumstances due to the intervening pandemic. The legislation could not be construed to require this. Therefore, GMCA did not fail to have regard to a material relevant consideration (ie a new assessment after the pandemic) under Wednesbury principles. As a result, GMCA’s decision to adopt the franchising scheme without repeating the assessment was neither unlawful nor irrational. It could not be construed to be the intention of Parliament when the legislation was enacted that unforeseen circumstances arising after the statutory audit of the authority's assessment and public consultation could require a step in the statutory process to be repeated. Written by Helen Randall, consultant, Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

Powers relating to prudent management in the discharge of the trustee's duty to maintain the trust estate.

This Practice Note outlines the process of administrative removal following the changes made by the Immigration Act 2014, including who is and is not liable for removal and where they may be removed to. It also covers the factors to be taken into account when reaching a decision on removal and the additional safeguards applicable for family cases. Further changes regarding removal notices were made by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NBA 2022), but these are not all yet in force. For more information, see News Analysis: Nationality and Borders Act 2022—summary for non-asylum practitioners. From 20 November 2023, the removal notices process and time limits have been placed on a statutory footing, with a usual requirement for a five-working day notice period, valid for 21 days if a first attempt at removal fails for reasons outside the control of the Home Office (see below). NBA 2022 as enacted would also provide for a system of ‘priority removal notices’ (PRNs), designed to ‘reduce the extent to which people can frustrate removals through sequential

The administrative restoration procedure was introduced by the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) as a simpler way to restore a company to the register that has been struck off pursuant to the powers of the Registrar of Companies, without the need to go to court. The procedure can only be used when certain conditions are met. It came into force on 1 October 2009.

Why restore an LLP to the register? When a limited liability partnership (LLP) has been struck off, it may be possible to make an application to the Registrar of Companies to restore that LLP to the register using the administrative restoration procedure. Common reasons for restoring an LLP to the register using the administrative restoration procedure include: • that the LLP was still carrying on business or was in operation at the time that the Registrar struck off the LLP, and • the LLP still owned property when it was struck off and dissolved, which has now vested as bona vacantia Application of CA 2006 to LLPs An LLP is a corporate body formed under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 (LLPA). The majority of law applicable to LLPs is actually modified company law rather than partnership law (see Practice Note: The nature of a limited liability partnership and its legal framework). The Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2009 (Regulations) specify the provisions of the Companies

Administrative review is the main remedy which is available to challenge immigration decisions on applications which are not human rights or asylum claims. It is an internal review of a Home Office decision, conducted by a Home Office official who is different to the original decision-maker, rather than by an independent tribunal or court. The in-country administrative review regime was phased in at the same time as the appeals regime introduced under the Immigration Act 2014 (IA 2014), which removed rights of appeal in many routes of entry and stay; a process which was complete by 6 April 2015. From that date, the scope of administrative review under the Immigration Rules was also expanded to include a number of entry clearance decisions and certain cancellation of leave decisions made at the border. There are significant waiting times on the decision of administrative reviews; at the time of writing published Home Office waiting times are at least 12 months for applications made overseas and in the UK, and at least 28 days for reviews on cancellation decisions. This, as