Law360, London: The Law Society said on 27 October 2025 that it has built on its existing resources for in-house solicitors facing ethical challenges in their day-to-day practice by introducing new guidance on whistleblowing.

Law360, London: The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) told a London appeals court on 23 February 2026 that the 'law is in a real mess' if it upholds a surprise ruling that legal executives, trainees and paralegals cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision.

A civil remedy in the form of caution or a deposit in security to ensure a person will keep the peace towards a person making a complaint.

Where an offence is subject to a defence of 'lawful authority' this postulates some legal exception to the general rule.

This Practice Note explains the lawful bases for processing personal data under the UK’s ‘GDPR’ data protection regime (as explained further below). It assumes a degree of knowledge about UK data protection law. For a general introduction to UK data protection law, including guidance on key data protection concepts and terminology, see the UK data protection law collection. The processing of personal data under the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) will only be lawful on condition that certain criteria are met. A controller can only lawfully process personal data in compliance with the lawfulness, fairness and transparency principle under Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR if it has a lawful basis for the processing under Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR. These are also commonly referred to as the ‘lawful grounds’, ‘lawful basis for processing’, legitimate grounds’ or ‘conditions for processing’. Under the UK GDPR, certain provisions regarding how data protection law applies in the UK are made under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). Furthermore,

What is a lawful development certificate? A lawful development certificate (LDC) is a certificate issued by a local planning authority (LPA) under either section 191 or 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) certifying either that: • an existing use of buildings or land, or some operational development, or any other matter constituting a breach of a planning permission, is lawful, or • a proposed use of buildings or other land, or some operations proposed to be carried out in, on, over or under land, would be lawful LDCs issued under TCPA 1990, s 191 are commonly referred to as certificates of lawfulness of existing use or development (CLEUDs), while LDCs under TCPA 1990, s 192 are commonly referred to as certificates of lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUDs). The LDC specifies a particular area of land, by reference to a plan or drawing, and confirms that the specified use or operations have been or can be carried on lawfully at the date of the application for the certificate. It is conclusive

To act with lawful excuse means to act with lawful justification.

Lawful issue refers to a person’s legitimate descendants, typically children, grandchildren and further lineal descendants who are recognised by law as such for succession, inheritance and trust purposes. Historically, “lawful issue” usually meant children born within marriage and excluded illegitimate or adopted children, but modern legislation in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland has largely removed discrimination based on birth status and includes adopted children in most succession contexts.The expression is frequently used in wills, settlements, family trusts and older conveyancing documents to identify a class of beneficiaries who take on death, often as “lawful issue of the body”. Its effect is interpreted in light of applicable succession and adoption statutes and case law in the relevant jurisdiction, and, in older instruments, may still exclude illegitimate children unless a contrary intention appears.Although not generally defined in a single statute, the meaning of “lawful issue” has been developed through case law and interpretative legislation concerning wills and trusts. Across the UK and Ireland, usage is broadly consistent, but practitioners should always construe the term contextually and by reference to the date and governing law of the instrument.

This Practice Note on the civil economic tort of lawful means conspiracy (conspiracy to injure) identifies the key elements of the tort: a combination or concerted action, predominant purpose of damage to the claimant, an overt act in pursuance of the agreement and resulting damage. For guidance on civil conspiracy claims more generally (and the distinction between lawful and unlawful means conspiracy) and guidance on pleading and evidencing such claims, see Practice Notes: • Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) • Unlawful means conspiracy (civil action) Lawful means conspiracy is a civil cause of action (it is known as one of the ‘economic torts’) providing a potential remedy for those suffering financial (economic) damage as a result of the defendant’s actions. It requires the claimant to satisfy a number of key requirements in order to establish such a claim. For general guidance on the economic tort claims, see: The economic torts—overview. For a comparison table identifying the key distinguishing features between the various economic torts, see Practice Note: Conspiracy, unlawful interference and procuring breach

Planning analysis: This judgment considered two distinct although similar cases. Although only applications for injunctions were heard with the substantive matters of the cases to be dealt with at a later date, the ruling sheds light on the planning law implications of the Home Office’s current use of hotels to temporarily house asylum seekers. The High Court considered the much argued, at local planning level, planning use for asylum seeker accommodation. The court considered the implications of asylum seekers being housed in C1 use class hotel accommodation against two local planning authorities’ (LPAs') assertions that the use should be considered a more ‘hostel-style’ sui generis use which would render the housing of asylum seekers in hotel accommodation unlawful in planning terms. With both LPAs being unsuccessful in their applications, these cases also consider the implications of LPAs requesting injunctive relief from the courts and the practical and legal considerations that must be followed if such a request is to be successful. Written by Rebecca Roffe, partner at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.

Public Law analysis: The claimants, a Nigerian mother and her two British children, sought permission for judicial review to challenge the eligibility criteria of two statutory schemes for childcare support. The mother had entered the UK on a skilled worker visa with ‘no recourse to public funds’. By virtue of the eligibility criteria, she was deemed to be a person ‘not being in the UK’ as she was subject to immigration control, so ineligible for the two schemes. She challenged the eligibility criteria on the grounds that they were ultra vires, discriminatory, irrational and breached the public sector equality duty (PSED). The High Court found all four grounds were unarguable and had no realistic prospect of success. While the court made a narrow finding that the PSED had been breached with respect to one of the schemes, this made no difference to the claimants’ position in light of a recent in-depth review by the Secretary of State of the equality implications. As such, the court was required to refuse permission. Written by Kyran Kanda, barrister at St Philips Chambers.

Law360: A trade body for personal injury firms has called for MPs to re-open a parliamentary inquiry into the impact on claimants of a new online portal for insurance compensation for whiplash injuries to the neck.