Private Client analysis: In Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd v Ivanishvili [2025] UKPC 53, the Privy Council considered the requirements of a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation. Significantly, the Board held that claimants do not need to prove their conscious awareness or understanding of a representation, so long as they can show that the representation induced them to enter the contract. Written by James Smith, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In Burgess v Sikorski, the High Court considered the assessment of services dependency claims under section 3 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976) following the death of a mother who had provided domestic and caring support to her husband and two vulnerable adult sons. While the court substantially reduced the claimant’s proposed care regime, it reaffirmed that future services dependency should generally be valued at the commercial cost of replacement. Most significantly, the court held that professional deputyship fees for protected beneficiaries are, in principle, recoverable under the FAA 1976 as a necessary consequence of replacing lost services. Permission to appeal was granted, making this an important case for practitioners involved in fatal accident litigation. Produced in partnership with Jennifer Dickinson of Cobden House Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In a seminal judgment, the UK Supreme Court by a 6–1 majority (Lord Burrows dissenting) has dismissed the claimants’ conjoined appeals against the strike out of their psychiatric injury claims from witnessing the death of close relatives from the defendants’ alleged (or admitted) clinical negligence. The Supreme Court has decided that a claimant cannot recover damages as a secondary victim unless the claimant witnessed an accident (or its immediate aftermath) caused by the Defendant’s negligence. A claim cannot succeed where what is witnessed is a negligently caused medical crisis (or its immediate aftermath) which involves the suffering or death of a close relative from illness, but no external accident. Central to the decision was the Supreme Court Justices’ view that it cannot be right to attribute to a doctor who enters into doctor-patient relationship, an assumption of responsibility for the health of members of the patient’s family. Written by Charles Bagot KC, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers, who represented all the respondent/defendants.

Law360, Expert analysis: On 28 July 2026, the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales handed down judgment in R v Osmond, the first appellate decision on the tipping off offence contained within section 333A(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). According to the analysis, with expert contributions from Andrew Reeves, partner and Global co-head of Investigations, Stuart Neely, partner, Emily Smith, senior associate and Ewan-Nize Gerber, associate, all at Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, the landmark decision clarifies that the tipping off offence may apply to disclosure of a specific, non-public investigative strand even where the wider investigation is publicly known, that the capacity in which information is received matters more than its source and that likely, rather than actual, prejudice is sufficient. It also confirms that the discretionary nature of an authority’s investigative power is not a defence to forgery where a false document is supplied to investigators.

Life Sciences analysis: On 1 December 2025, the UK government announced a ‘landmark’ UK-US pharmaceutical deal. Under the deal, the UK claims to be (so far) the only country to secure zero-percent tariffs on pharmaceuticals exported to the US for the next three years. In return, the UK has committed to increase its spending on medicines and revise some of the most controversial aspects of the UK pricing and reimbursement system. Although details as to the implementation of the deal are still unclear, it is clear this will involve major changes to the landscape for commercializing innovator drugs in the UK, after months of attritional and sometimes fractious wrangling between the industry and UK government. Written by Grant Castle, Raj Gathani and Dan Spivey of Covington & Burling LLP.

National Trading Standards has announced that two ‘ticket touts’, Peter Hunter and David Thomas Smith, who fraudulently resold event tickets, have been ordered to pay back £6,167,522.02 following the handing down of a confiscation order at a Leeds Crown Court hearing. The two ran BZZ Limited, a multi-million pound limited company used to purchase and resell event and concert tickets at inflated prices and were found to have benefitted from their crimes to the amount of £8,750,732.00. This is the UK’s first successful prosecution and conviction against a company reselling tickets fraudulently at a large scale. The two have been given three months to pay back the confiscation order or face an additional eight year imprisonment if they fail to pay.

Local Government analysis: On 14th February 2024, the High Court issued a landmark ruling that universities and students alike have been long awaiting. Shannett Thompson of Kingsley Napley considers the judgment in The University of Bristol v Dr Robert Abrahart (Administrator of the estate of Natasha Abrahart, deceased) (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) and the practical implications of the ruling.

Information Law analysis: The Court of Appeal has handed down a unanimous decision on the responsibilities of the Information Commissioner (operating through the Information Commissioner’s Office, the ICO) when a data subject lodges a complaint alleging that a data controller has infringed data protection law. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal held that the ICO has a discretion to decide whether or not to investigate a complaint about a data controller, and that this discretion is to be exercised in a reasonable and proportionate manner; the ICO is not obliged to reach a definitive decision on the merits of every complaint, and that it may be appropriate in some cases to take other action, such as providing advice or guidance to the data subject or the data controller; the ICO had acted lawfully in exercising its discretion to decline to investigate Mr Delo's complaint further. The Court of Appeal noted that the ICO had reviewed the relevant correspondence and had concluded that it was likely that Wise had complied with its obligations. The Court of Appeal also noted that Mr Delo had a number of other options available to him, including bringing a civil claim against Wise. The case is significant in setting out the parameters of the ICO’s duties in respect of complaint handling. Written by Rebecca Keating, barrister at 4 Pump Court.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This case was a claim for damages for image-based abuse, commonly referred to as ‘revenge porn’, arising from the publication of images of the claimant on a pornographic website without her consent. The images were obtained by the defendant covertly and included naked images of the claimant alongside her face. The court considered the various relevant torts that would apply to a case of this nature to include infringement of the claimant’s privacy, misuse of private information and intentionally exposing the claimant to a foreseeable risk of injury or severe distress. The court awarded general damages of £60,000 and special damages of £37,041.61 for consequential financial losses making a total of £97,041.61. Written by Jonathan Bridge, partner at Farleys Solicitors LLP.

Arbitration analysis: The Economic Chamber of the Amman Court of First Instance issued a groundbreaking judgment addressing the topic of extending arbitration agreements to non-parties through indirect claims. Mohammed Shraideh, of counsel, and Mahmoud Abuwasel, managing partner, Wasel and Wasel explore the case.

Corporate Crime analysis: The High Court has ruled that part of the government’s flagship surveillance law, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016), is unlawful following a successful legal challenge from human rights organisation Liberty. Carolina Bracken, barrister at 5 Paper Buildings, discusses the practical implications of the judgment concerning this important constitutional case.

Law360: The Clara-Pensions Group Ltd (Clara) announced on 17 June 2025 that it has taken on £55m in assets from defined benefit (DB) scheme sponsored by the Church Mission Society.