Planning analysis: In Barstow v Green GEN, the High Court held that notice under section 174 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (HPA 2016) must be given to every owner and every occupier, does not run with the land, and must be framed with sufficient practical detail, having regard to the Code of Practice on Powers of Entry. It also held that what amounts to a ‘reasonable time’ for entry depends on the nature of the activity and the circumstances of the land and its occupiers.

Law360: The High Court judge who ruled in favour of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in a claim over unauthorised pension advice in the FCA v Avacade case recused himself on 14 July 2020 from further involvement after the defendants raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest.

Law360, London: High Court judge, Joanna Smith, has said that artificial intelligence (AI) could be used to decide straightforward cases such as traffic or parking disputes, telling a London conference that there was 'definitely scope' for using AI in decision-making.

Family analysis: In this Schedule 1 case the mother received, for her son’s benefit: a housing fund of nearly £1m (the property to be held on trust); child maintenance (including ‘HECSA’/carer’s allowance) until completion of his first degree; and lump sums in respect of his capital needs and her own substantial liabilities (chiefly relating to her unpaid legal fees). The father (whose resources could be measured in the ‘tens of millions of pounds’) had sought to prejudice the mother’s claims via transferring his valuable shares to family members, who then transferred the same into a trust structure (settled under Czech law). A further onwards transfer was then made of the trust’s assets into a Liechtenstein foundation. Inferences were drawn by the court in respect of the level of the father’s wealth, and specifically as to the value of the transferred shares. Detailed findings were made against him in respect of the identified transactions, which had been the focus of the mother’s section 423 application. Although a section 423(2) order was not actually made, the application was adjourned pending the father’s compliance with the award, with security in the sum of £600,000 also ordered, alongside a continuation of the freezing orders made earlier in the proceedings. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

Private Client analysis: The High Court has resolved a dispute between two executors over the funeral arrangements for their father, a devout Hindu. In a sensible and sensitive decision which reviewed and applied settled principles, the judge (HHJ Paul Matthews) considered the various factors which favoured cremation in England over burial in India. These included the wishes of the deceased, the views of his family, the strength of his connections to the UK and India, and practicalities such as cost and delay. While the relevant factors and their relative weight will inevitably be fact-sensitive, similar factors are likely to recur in many such cases. What is clear is that no single factor (in particular, the deceased’s own wishes) will necessarily be conclusive, so that the court must weigh all relevant factors with care. Written by Kyle Bonnell, barrister at XXIV Old Buildings.

Arbitration analysis: In a decision given in October 2024, the Delhi High Court (DHC) exercised its prima facie jurisdiction under Section 11(5) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to partially allow a petition to commence arbitration against certain non-signatories to an arbitration agreement on the basis of the non-signatories’ ‘positive, direct, and substantial’ involvement in the negotiation or performance of the underlying contract containing the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the DHC found the non-signatories to be veritable parties, leaving the ultimate decision about whether the non-signatories were, in fact, bound by the arbitration agreement to the arbitral tribunal. Written by Juhi Gupta, counsel and Ayan Tandon, associate at Shardul Amarch and Mangaldas & Co.

Arbitration analysis: In a decision given in July 2025, the High Court of Delhi (DHC) refused to interfere with an order passed by an arbitral tribunal under section 17 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) on the basis that the impugned order was well-reasoned and preserved the parties’ rights in an ongoing contract. In doing so, the DHC reiterated that an appellate court should exercise its powers under Section 37(2)(b) of the A&C Act sparingly and only when the order granting or refusing to grant interim relief under section 17 is ‘vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness or manifest illegality’. Accordingly, the DHC dismissed the appeal. Written by Juhi Gupta, counsel and Kevin Santhosh, associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Arbitration analysis: Despite the clause in the 2014 shareholders’ agreement using broad terms such as ‘arising out of or relating to’ and extending to non-contractual obligations, the court held that the alleged misappropriation of corporate assets did not fall within its scope. The key reason was that Soremi Investments Ltd (SIL) was not a transacting party to the shareholders’ agreement, which governed relations between the shareholders rather than the company’s own affairs. The judgment refines the application of Fiona Trust in Hong Kong: broad words do not always override the contractual and party context. The decision has major drafting implications and provides practical guidance for counsel managing stay applications under section 20(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance. Written by Julien Chaisse, professor & RGC senior research fellow at School of Law, City University of Hong Kong.

This court is the supreme criminal court for Scotland.

Arbitration analysis: The High Court of Orissa (Orissa HC), vide its order dated 11 December 2024 in a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), upheld the arbitrability of disputes relating to copyright infringement on the basis that a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is an action in personam and not an action in rem. Accordingly, the HC appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. Written by Juhi Gupta, counsel and Keyur Jaju, associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Arbitration analysis: On 13 March 2023, the Kwazulu-Natal Division of the High Court stayed an application for the return of goods and the re-payment of substantial sums pending finalisation of arbitration proceedings in London (Lukoil Marine Lubricants DMCC v Natal Energy Resources and Commodities (Pty) Ltd). The judgment affirms South Africa as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction and provides a welcome (and, for the time being, rare) example of the enforcement of South Africa’s International Arbitration Act 15 of 2017 (the IAA). Zelda Hunter and Marius Gass, partner and associate at White & Case respectively, discuss the judgment.