Dispute Resolution analysis: A large Russian bank was not entitled to an order under CPR 25(12)(1) granting it security for its costs in defending an application to discharge an order appointing receivers by way of equitable execution, because the application was not a ‘claim’ for the purposes of the rule. It had been brought as a defensive measure in the context of proceedings brought by the bank. The applicants had not chosen to be a party and the application had no independent vitality of its own. Therefore the bank was not ‘a defendant to any claim’ by the applicant. Written by Alice Nash, barrister, Hailsham Chambers.

Ireland—Corporate analysis: This article, was written by A&L Goodbody LLP’s Disputes Team. On 24 July 2025, in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd No 2 [2025] UKPC 34, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered a landmark judgment abolishing the ‘Shareholder Rule’.

Often seen in US restructurings preventing a seller from soliciting bids from any other buyers.

IP analysis: The caterpillar cake has long been an iconic focal point of children’s parties and office celebrations across the UK. But can one supermarket prevent their competitors from making copy-caterpillars? Marks & Spencer (M&S) certainly thinks so, after bringing infringement proceedings against Aldi and its ‘Cuthbert the Caterpillar’ cake. Jack Kenny, associate, and Eve Brown, associate, at Marks & Clerk discuss the potential arguments M&S could make as part of their claim and the issues they may face in response.

Local Government analysis: This is a further chapter in a long-running dispute over the introduction of property licensing schemes in Luton. The local authority sought to implement selective and additional licensing under Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004). This was challenged by the Claimant, a company led by a local landlord. Permission for Judicial Review was dismissed with the Court finding that the claimant lacked standing, but going on to also find that each of the eight grounds of challenge were unarguable. The case addresses the test for locus standi where a claimant relies on ‘associational standing’, and examines the steps taken by a local authority when undertaking to implement HA 2004 property licensing schemes. Written by Kevin Long, solicitor at Hackney Community Law Centre.

Arbitration analysis: Mr David Edwards QC in the Commercial Court refused to stay English court proceedings in favour of arbitration following an application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The court found, against the first defendant (DLA Russia), that the claims made by the claimant did not fall within the scope of the relevant arbitration agreement contained in an engagement letter: the arbitration agreement was not retrospective, and therefore, did not govern the matters which were the subject matter of the claim. The court also refused to stay proceedings on case management grounds, a route the second defendant (DLA UK) relied on, given that it was not party to the arbitration agreement. Written by Lorraine Aboagye, barrister, at Essex Court Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: HH Judge Pelling QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) dismissed an appeal against an order made by a District Judge by which she dismissed an application by the defendants for orders sought pursuant to CPR 11, CPR 62.8 and section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) staying the proceedings on the basis that the parties’ disputes should be determined by arbitration under Section K, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Football Association Limited (FA Rules). The decision is of interest to arbitration practitioners as the court considered whether there was an arbitration agreement between the parties under AA 1996, s 5(3) (ie where the parties agree otherwise than in writing by reference to terms which are in writing).

Public Law analysis: The High Court found that an alleged oral assurance given by a local councillor in an informal meeting with Grantchester residents did not give rise to a legitimate expectation that a proposed greenway would not go through Grantchester village if Grantchester residents did not support it. The court held that for a substantive legitimate expectation (effectively a right of veto by villagers) to arise from an oral statement, any such statement must contain ‘a particularly clear and unequivocal promise’. Given the inconclusiveness of oral evidence of what was in fact said, Mrs Justice Lieven concluded that it was unlikely that the local councillor would have said anything that could amount to a binding commitment. The court’s approach in this case illustrates the forensic difficulty in setting out to prove the existence of a sufficiently clear and unambiguous oral promise capable of giving rise to a legitimate expectation. Written by Tetyana Nesterchuk, barrister at Fountain Court Chambers.

Planning analysis: This case concerned the lawful approach to environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and ‘substitution’ arguments in the context of fossil fuel developments following the Supreme Court’s decision in R (oao Finch) v Surrey County Council and others [2024] UKSC 20. The court found that the Secretary of State had acted in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the 2011 regulations) in determining the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the burning of coal from the proposed mine were not likely indirect significant effects of the development, applying Finch. Written by Rowan Clapp, a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

IP & IT analysis: Radiohead have been accused of ‘tarnishing the brand’ of Trumpton in their video for the single, Burn the Witch, but could it be saved from a copyright claim by being a parody in the eyes of the law? Mark Owen, partner in the IP and media group at Taylor Wessing, and an expert on copyright matters discusses the case.

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has declined to uphold a complaint that the trustee of the British Steel Pension Scheme (the Scheme) failed to carry out sufficient due diligence on a statutory transfer of a member’s pension to a small self-administered scheme (SSAS), where the receiving scheme subsequently appeared to have been used as a scam vehicle. The determination considers whether transferring occupational scheme trustees are under a duty to conduct due diligence as set out in the Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) Scorpion guidance and offers a helpful indication of the Ombudsman’s likely future approach to similar complaints concerning statutory transfers (at least where such transfers took place before 30 November 2021, when the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Conditions for Transfers) Regulations 2021 (the Transfer Regulations 2021) came into force). Separate determinations dealing with non-statutory transfers and transfers from personal pension schemes are understood to be forthcoming. Written by Henry Day, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The Court of Appeal set aside findings of liability made against Transport for London (TfL) in personal injury claims arising from the design of a stepped cycle track on Farringdon Road. The claimants had suffered injury when they mistook a raised kerbstone on the cycle track for a white painted line. They alleged that TfL had not done enough to make the kerb more readily distinguishable and/or to prevent cyclists attempting to enter the track at a point where they would hit it. The trial judge found that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to inattentive cyclists and that this could have been mitigated by installing wands over the kerbstones. He gave judgment against TfL subject to contributory negligence on the part of the claimants. The Court of Appeal overturned this finding, holding that the judge had not carried out the evaluative exercise necessary to find that the risk was such that reasonable care required further mitigation. The case was remitted on all issues. Produced in partnership with David Juckes of Hailsham Chambers.