The Migration Observatory has published its 2026 asylum briefing, revealing that UK asylum claims peaked at approximately 105,000 in 2024—the highest since records began in 1979—remaining high at 101,000 in 2025. Pakistani nationals became the largest group of asylum seekers that year. In 2025, 52% of asylum seekers arrived via unauthorised routes, including 41% by small boat, while 39% had entered on a visa. The initial decision grant rate fell sharply to 42% in 2025, down from a record 76% in 2022. The asylum backlog of initial decisions fell from 91,000 at the end of 2024 to 49,000 a year later, though an appeals backlog doubled to 80,000 cases over the same period. The cost of the asylum system stood at £4.8 billion in 2024–25. Key policy changes include: (1) the Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Act (BSAIA 2025), which repealed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 (SR(AI)A 2024); (2) the suspension of the refugee family reunion route in September 2025 and (3) a new 30-month leave model replacing the previous 5-year refugee status in March 2026. The Immigration and Asylum Bill, introduced in June 2026, proposes replacing the immigration tribunal with a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority and requiring some refugees to repay accommodation costs averaging £10,000.

The Migration Observatory has published a report highlighting key challenges in the UK immigration system based on a survey of migrants' experiences. The study reveals that while EU Settlement Scheme applications were generally easier, pre-settled status holders showed less awareness of their rights. The report also identifies issues with digital-only immigration statuses and notes that the Home Office is transitioning to eVisas for non-EUSS status holders by 2025. Importantly, migrants who encountered problems proving their status expressed less confidence in the system overall.

Measures the rate at which users on one tariff will move onto a new optimal tariff (assuming they keep the same usage pattern).

The risk that a bond will be downgraded to a lower rating by one of the independent ratings agencies, reflecting its likelihood of default. As a bond migrates its price falls.

The Migration Observatory has published a briefing examining returns of people without a legal right to be in the UK, including enforced removals and voluntary departures. It presents statistics on the numbers and characteristics of people who are returned from the UK.

The Milan Chamber of Arbitration (CAM) has published its 2025 Annual Report, showing 135 arbitration requests in 2024 with a total value exceeding €1.36bn, a 151% rise from 2023. The report highlights the first use of CAM’s Emergency Arbitrator mechanism, a 57% increase in simplified arbitration, and greater recourse to sole arbitrators, reflecting efficiency gains in Italian dispute resolution.

Law360: Milan will become the last seat of a trio for the central area of the EU's Unified Patent Court (UPC) system, after the UK bowed out of the role nearly four years ago.

A key event during the course of the project. In some contracts, the contractor's entitlement to interim payment depends on completion of specified milestones.

This Practice Note outlines the principal routes for personal injury claims brought by serving and former service personnel, including statutory claims and compensation schemes under domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It addresses claims arising from accidents during combat operations and training, as well as specific injuries including non-freezing cold injury, noise-induced hearing loss, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychiatric injury arising from bullying or harassment and parading injuries. The history and suspension of Crown immunity It is useful to consider the historical development of the law governing military claims. Until 1987, section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (CPA 1947) prevented military personnel from bringing actions against the Crown in respect of death or personal injury caused by other members of the British Armed Forces. Sections 1 and 2 of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 (CP(AF)A 1987) provide that CPA 1947, s 10 shall cease to have effect, subject to the power of the Secretary of State for Defence to revive it when ‘necessary or expedient’ in specified

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Military hearing loss claims are increasingly common. A recent agreement with the MoD has resolved many of the contentious issues, leaving medical causation and quantum to be determined. A trial of the test cases in Abbott v MoD will provide clarity on how to address these issues in future cases. Written by Simon Ellis, partner and head of the Military Department at Hugh James.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 September 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel concerning the sale of military hand grenades (AT.40706). Latest development On 21 September 2023, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the two companies settled

STOP PRESS: This Practice Note is being updated to take account of Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 941 (KB) which found that the diagnostic method to be preferred in military NIHL cases is the rM-NIHL method. CLB is not generally suitable for military cases. Background Claims for noise-induced hearing loss claims (NIHL) have been around for decades, but recently, there has been an increasing number of claims against the Ministry of Defence (MOD) brought on behalf of Army, Navy and RAF personnel for NIHL suffered during military service—so-called ‘M-NIHL’ claims. There are many similarities between occupational NIHL (O-NIHL) and M-NIHL claims, but M-NIHL claims usually have particular distinguishing features which must be borne in mind when handling these claims. Existence and extent of duties Members of the armed forces are not employees as they are not engaged on contracts of service; formally, they are servants of the crown. However, it is well established that the members of the armed forces are owed equivalent duties to those owed to employees