The Irish High Court ruled on 21 March 2025 that Virgin Media failed to comply with regulatory obligations regarding contract termination procedures. The Court ordered Virgin Media to revise its practices to prevent disincentivising provider switching, including removing instructions for retention activities against customer wishes and implementing immediate cancellation processing. The company must retrain all agents within 8 weeks and eliminate financial incentives for non-compliant save activities. The Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) will update its regulatory guidance accordingly.

Immigration analysis: In a judicial review claim brought by Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London (‘RAMFEL’) and Ms Cecilia Adjei, the High Court decided that the SSHD had been Wednesbury unreasonable in not providing proof of immigration status documents to persons with leave to remain under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971). The High Court also found that failure to do so breaches section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2007. The High Court rejected the argument that this failure breaches the Padfield principle (Padfield v Minister of Agriculture), or that the Home Secretary had failed in his Public Sector Equality Duty. Written by Parvez Anwar Pantho, caseworker at Duncan Lewis.

In HM Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corp; R (on the application of ‘Beth’) v The Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2025] EWHC 1669 (KB), the High Court rejected findings from two investigations into MI5's provision of false evidence regarding an informant known as ‘X’. The court found major procedural deficiencies in both MI5's internal investigation and an external review by former Head of the Government Legal Department, Sir Jonathan Jones KC. The judgment called for a new independent investigation and criticised MI5's continued reliance on ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policies in legal proceedings. The case arose from MI5 providing false evidence in 2022 injunction proceedings brought by the Attorney General against the BBC. The Centre for Women’s Justice issued a statement on the ruling and its wider implications.

Local Government analysis: This analysis is a Court of Appeal decision concerning the permanent exclusion of a young man from a school in circumstances where he was at risk of being drawn into criminal exploitation. In what circumstances the positive protection duty arising under Article 4 ECHR would apply when a school was considering permanently excluding a child. Written by Hannah Lynch, barrister at St Pauls Chambers.

Tax analysis: In JTC Employer Solutions Trustee v Garnett and others, the High Court permitted rescission in relation to Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) appointments to sub-trusts, with the result that inheritance tax (IHT) in the region of £7m was avoided. The Court decided that the mistake in creating sub-trusts was sufficiently grave to render it unconscionable to leave the mistaken dispositions uncorrected.

Tax Analysis: In Aubrey Weis v HMRC, the High Court granted the claimant’s application to extend time to bring judicial review proceedings against HMRC and granted permission for the case to proceed to trial. The dispute concerns the taxpayer’s historical domicile status and whether he had a legitimate expectation that HMRC would regard him as non-UK domiciled, such that his foreign income and gains would be taxed on the remittance basis.

Choice of venue—Chancery Division or Commercial Court? The High Court has jurisdiction to hear both follow-on competition claims and stand-alone actions. Under the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction on Competition Law (the 'PD Competition Law'), a claim will be assigned to the Competition List in the Chancery Division of the High Court, unless it comes within the scope of CPR rule 58.1 in which case it will be assigned to the Commercial Court of the Queen’s Bench Division. Cases brought before the Chancery Division may benefit from judges who have also gained specialist competition experience from a combined role sitting in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Commercial Court is, however, sometimes favoured by claimants due to its business focussed approach and experience in dealing with multi-jurisdictional claims. There are also important differences between the Chancery Division and the Commercial Court in the procedural rules that litigants must follow. These are set out in the tables below. Note—if appropriate, the High Court can move cases to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, either following an application from one

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In this judgment, Mr Justice Trower provides welcome clarity to the key questions of (a) how the procedural deadlines set out in section 279 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and rule 10.143 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016) should be treated; (b) what jurisdiction the court has to consider suspension applications issued outside of those deadlines; and (c) how and when a party may both be found to have been served, and be found to have waived their rights to complain about service (or be estopped from doing so). Written by Rowena Page, barrister at Maitland Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The so-called ‘slip rule’ under CPR 40.12, which allows the court to ‘correct an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order’, is a useful tool for litigants who, in the light of later reflection, realise that the terms of a court order are inaccurate or incomplete. The rule reflects a pragmatic acceptance that mistakes or oversights do happen, and that it should not be unduly onerous for litigants to remedy those where possible. However, this decision underlines that there are limits to the issues the slip rule is capable of fixing, reaffirming that the touchstone for the rule should be what the intention of the court was at the time the order was made; it is not means to litigate new points, or include new evidence, which was not originally before the court. Written by Leo Kitchen, senior associate, at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: following the trial of a preliminary issue to determine the terms and conditions governing two purchase orders in light of a 20–year course of dealing between the parties, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart decided that neither party’s terms and conditions were incorporated. During his decision, the judge referred to several authorities on the incorporation of terms and provided a useful distillation of the relevant principles.

Private Client analysis: Mr Justice Francis delivers helpful guidance on the court’s approach to interim applications under section 5 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A) 1975), making an order for interim support at a rate of £5,200 per month limited to providing for the claimant’s ‘immediate financial need’ and £55,587 provision for the claimant’s legal costs until after the listing of a Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing (FDR) (with a further two months of legal fees support following on from any unsuccessful FDR to enable any renewed application to be made) the judge deprecated the level of costs incurred on the interim application, commenting that in a commercial context (as opposed to a ‘family row’) the application would likely have been compromised. Written by Simon Calhaem, barrister at 29 Bedford Row.

Private Client analysis: After a 12-day High Court trial, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE upheld the claimants’ claims that their father, Dr Leonard, neither had capacity to execute his purported final Will in October 2015, nor knew and approved of its contents. The judge’s analysis and clarification of the test in Banks v Goodfellow will be of interest to litigators in this area, and is the focus of the analysis in this article. The judgment also reaffirms the role of expert evidence in capacity cases, and acts as a reminder to Private Client lawyers of the important part they play in drafting Wills for elderly or vulnerable people, and a warning for those who get that wrong. Written by George Vare, barrister at Serle Court Chambers, and junior counsel for the claimants.