Family analysis: The Family Court has reiterated in Tobias v Tobias that applications for freezing orders against a spouse were to be made to it and not to the Family Division of the High Court. Fitzrene Headley, a barrister at QEB, considers the court’s guidance on making such applications.

Law360: A California federal judge has dismissed one count out of seven from a lawsuit alleging artificial intelligence (AI) image generator Stability AI produces garbled images with Getty Images' trade mark, leaving the bulk of the claims in the litigation to move forward.

If an employment tribunal case comprises claims arising under a number of different of jurisdictions, with the effect that some of the claims must be dealt with by an Employment Judge sitting with lay panel members and others could be dealt with by a judge sitting alone, the judge must expressly and actively consider whether to exercise his discretion to (1) hear the latter also with lay members so that all claims in the case can be determined at the same hearing, or (2) order a split hearing with some of the claims to be heard by a full tribunal panel and the others to be heard by a judge sitting alone. EAT: Birring v Rogers and Moore trading as Charity Link.

An English judge on 20 May 2026 denied the former director of a Russian company’s challenge of a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitrator’s ruling dismissing the director’s claim for an unpaid bonus worth $1.3 million for lack of jurisdiction, writing that the arbitrator properly found the alleged incentive agreement was fraudulently backdated and therefore invalid.

Arbitration analysis: A District of Columbia federal judge denied a motion to dismiss two Mauritian mining investors’ amended complaint seeking to enforce a judgment recognising an arbitral award worth more than US$50m against the Republic of Zimbabwe and its state-owned mining company after finding that the two are alter egos.

Law360: A district court judge has won permission to bring her case that a secretive part of the process for appointing judges is unlawful, after the Court of Appeal ruled that a judicial review is in the public interest.

Dispute Resolution analysis: On appeal, Mr Justice Ritchie has concluded that permission ought to have been granted to a claimant who sought to amend its particulars of claim and that relief should have been granted from the usual, harsh sanction imposed by CPR 3.14 for the very late filing of a cost budget. However, a less draconian sanction was imposed instead. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Draft Judgement Following any appeal hearing where the court reserves judgement and indicates that judgement is to be handed down at a later date, it should be understood by all parties that the draft judgement is embargoed and its contents confidential to counsel and solicitors in the case. When a draft judgement is received it is to be treated confidentially, on the understanding that it has been provided to give counsel in the case the opportunity to bring to the courts attention any important factual error or omission or typographical errors prior to the ruling being handed down. A draft judgement is clearly marked on its face as confidential. This is a draft judgement, subject to the changes indicated above, and may not necessarily be the final form of judgement. The other important purpose of circulating a draft judgement is to allow counsel in the case to consider and prepare any applications which may arise from the judgement, so that these may be made in a timely fashion at the time that judgement is handed down.

The judicial branch The judicial branch of government in England and Wales operates independently of the executive and legislature, and contains the Senior Courts, which consist of the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Crown Court. The County Courts and the magistrates’ courts are also a further branch of the judiciary. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA 2005) provided for the creation of the Supreme Court as the final court of appeal in the UK. The UK Supreme Court was established in October 2009, replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the highest court in the UK. It is separate from the Courts of England and Wales, as it is also the Supreme Court of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Judges and magistrates are appointed by and derive their authority from the Crown. Judges must, however, exercise their authority in a lawful manner, without deviating from the known and stated forms. Thus the effective functioning of the judiciary requires independence, impartiality and freedom from political and other pressures in the

Allocation of judiciary Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) sets out a procedure for tenancies which fall within that part (business tenancies) to be terminated or renewed or for a new tenancy to be granted by the court. CPR PD 2B addresses the allocation of different types of case to different levels of the judiciary. CPR PD 2B s 1.3 makes clear that in proceedings in the County Court, the functions of a circuit judge can be exercised by a range of different judges which include

Law360, London: A judge's challenge on 2 July 2025 to the lawfulness of a secretive process used to appoint judges will shine a light on part of the UK legal system that is often criticised but largely opaque.

Family analysis: In this decision, Mr Justice Hayden underlined the duty on judges to draw on the totality of a wide canvas of evidence and, where that evidence permits, to identify the perpetrator of significant harm. He reminds us that this evaluation is carried out on the balance of probabilities (nothing more, nothing less) and, while this builds in a risk of error, lawyers and judges should not shirk that obligation out of an abundance of caution. The wide canvas of evidence invariably includes a variety of evidence, including hearsay and evidence of propensity to cause harm. Drawing together that evidence, and properly drawing inferences from it, assists in building a picture of the family’s life at the point at which significant harm is caused. Identifying the perpetrator avoids tainting the non-perpetrator parent while also providing the foundations for constructive and safe strategies for a child’s future care. Written by Chris Stevenson, barrister at 4PB.