Local Government analysis: The case of PZP v HS Academy; STW v IRP involved a judicial review claim against the decision of an Independent Review Panel (IRP) brought by two pupils who were permanently excluded following an unprovoked assault on another pupil. The court held that the IRP had not acted unlawfully by not providing a requested special educational needs (SEN) expert as the claimant had been made aware of their right to adjourn and waived that right. The court also held that the IRP’s decision to recommend reconsideration was irrational and the IRP had not lawfully and adequately considered the school’s Governors’ Disciplinary Panel’s (GDP) compliance with the public sector equality duty (PSED) as they incorrectly concluded that the pupil did not have a protected characteristic. However, the claim failed as the issue of irrationality was now academic and the error relating to the pupil’s protected characteristic was not material to the case. Written by Vida Simpeh, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Law360, Expert analysis: On 12 February 2026, the Civil Section No 27 of the Barcelona Court of First Instance delivered Auto No 86/2026 in proceedings concerning the recognition of a foreign judgment issued by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales in December 2024. Josep Galvez, barrister at 4–5 Gray’s Inn Square and former judge in Spain, examines the implications of the Barcelona Court of First Instance’s decision, including its approach to concurrent proceedings and the risks for parties seeking recognition of foreign judgments.

Dispute Resolution analysis: His Honour Judge (HHJ) Paul Matthews sitting in the High Court determined a summary assessment of costs in which the receiving party had sought to claim hourly rates higher than the relevant figures in the Guide to the Summary Assessment of Costs, as updated on 1 October 2021. The judge rejected arguments that either the rise in inflation since the publication of the GHR or the fact that there had been an increase in remote working amounted to sufficient justification for the recovery of enhanced hourly rates. Written by Ms Shilpa Shah, barrister at Ropewalk Chambers.

Law360, London: On 23 July 2025, the UK Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, quashing the fraud convictions of traders Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo. Ellen Gallagher, partner at Vardags Ltd, discusses the judgment.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Queen’s Bench Division has awarded damages and aggravated damages in relation to claims of false imprisonment and assault brought against Metropolitan Police officers. The long judgment is of interest to civil litigation practitioners in the guidance given on how to prepare and present factual and expert evidence for and at trial. Evidential issues addressed include how to limit a large volume of evidence, hearsay evidence, similar fact evidence and expert evidence.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Commercial skills Commercial skills for complex government projects (National Audit Office) examines the level of commercial skills across government and the steps being taken at that time by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (now the Crown Commercial Service) and departments to improve them. ‘Commercial skills’ are defined as ‘the ability to interact on equal and professional terms with the private sector’. According to the National Audit Office (NAO) such skills are essential to the achievement of value for money in the government’s major projects portfolio (valued £200bn at the time) and in other complex projects. Projects need to be undertaken by project teams with commercial skills and the projects must be approved, led and governed by commercially-aware senior civil servants and departmental boards. In a separately published Appendix 2 to the report, the NAO lists government projects which it and the Public Accounts Committee have identified as having suffered delays and poor value for money for want of relevant

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) previously announced a £465,000 penalty against Herbert Smith Freehills CIS LLP (HSF Moscow) for breaching UK financial sanctions on Russia. In this blog post, OFSI examines what lessons other businesses should take from this case. OFSI identified inadequate due diligence and sanctions screening as primary causes of the sanctions breach and highlighted three main compliance lessons: understanding sanctions risk exposure, adherence to internal procedures and proper assessment of ownership and control structures.

Law360: Two aircraft lessors have filed details of claims against insurers in London for a combined total of US$62.1m over planes stranded in Russia because of the invasion of Ukraine after a landmark ruling dismissed attempts to move the cases and others to Russia.

Law360, London: Reinsurers cannot refuse multibillion-dollar claims for planes stranded in Russia on the basis that they are not covered by reinsurance policies arranged by airlines, a group of lessors told the opening of trial 5 October 2026.

Arbitration analysis: XX, YY & Others v ZZ illustrates the Hong Kong court’s approach to the jurisdictional conundrum, which arises from a very typical paradigm where a target company (and its associates) (the ‘Warrantors’) having given a contractual indemnity (in ‘Contract A’) in favour of an investor with respect to all losses resulting from the non-performance of a put option (which acts as an ‘exit mechanism’) contained in the company’s articles and/or a subsequent contractual agreement (‘Contract B’). In this case, the Warrantors’ attempt to avoid arbitral jurisdiction failed. The Warrantors’ argument that ‘the “centre of gravity” of the indemnity claim (which turns on the alleged failure to perform the put option) lies with Contract B’ was squarely rejected. In very simple terms, the net effect of this decision is that: for jurisdiction purposes, an indemnification claim which can only arise out of Contract A would (more likely) be treated as ‘closer’ to Contract A, even if the underlying dispute triggering the indemnity may fall within the scope of Contract B as well. Written by Adrian Lai, barrister at Des Voeux Chambers and Matthew Suen, barrister at Denis Chang’s Chambers.

A lethal dose of radiation is the dose required to cause death to 50 percent of an exposed population within 30 days (LD 50/30). Typically, the LD 50/30 is in the range from 400 to 450 rem (4 to 5 Sieverts) received over a very short period. Duration of the exposure is important here as the dose received by patients in radiotherapy treatments can reach 20 Sv over time.

ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained. STOP PRESS: As of 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) are in force. Procurements begun on or after this date must be carried out under PA 2023, whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, the Concession Regulations 2016, and the Defence