Actions against regulators/authorities Apart from judicial review of decisions, civil actions are available where loss or damage arises from breach of duty and negligence on the part of public authorities, exemplified by the Corby litigation, which concluded with an out-of-court settlement in April 2010. Corby arose from remediation of the former steelworks site, used for steelmaking for 60 years and for dumping steelmaking wastes since well before the time of waste regulation. The local authority Corby DC, with enterprise zone status, derelict land grant and EU regional development funding, bought the 270ha site from British Steel in parcels, reclaiming it in several phases over 15 years. After reclamation work was completed, a group of children born between 1985 and 1999 suffered limb reduction defects, mainly missing

Construction analysis: The case involved a tri-partite dispute over a residential property development (‘the development’) in Wilmslow, Cheshire. The judge held the property developer (‘the developer’) liable in nuisance to the claimants, the owners of neighbouring property, on the basis that the development had altered surface water runoff patterns and caused ongoing flooding of the claimants’ garden. Even though the overland flow of rainwater had occurred naturally from the development to the claimants’ property pre-development, the applicable standard of care in nuisance was held to be the objective one rather than the measured duty derived from Leakey v National Trust. This was because the developer had created a nuisance by carrying out works that made the ‘natural’ position materially worse. This case summary deals only with the claim brought by the claimants in nuisance (the proceedings also included claims by the third and fourth defendants against the developer for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract and contribution). Written by Nicola Atkins, barrister at Crown Office Chambers.

This Practice Note defines and distinguishes between private nuisance (substantial interference with the use/enjoyment of land), public nuisance (an unlawful act/omission causing widespread harm) and ‘the rule in Rylands v Fletcher’ (‘non-natural’ activity on the defendant’s land escaping and causing harm). Private nuisance claims often arise as neighbour disputes (eg noise nuisance). Public nuisance requires special damage to have been suffered. The ‘rule in Rylands v Fletcher’ is one of strict liability but does allow for a number of potential defences. Nuisance claims are recognised in the following way: • private nuisance—substantial interference with the use/enjoyment of land • public nuisance—an unlawful act/omission causing widespread harm • ‘the rule in Rylands v Fletcher’ — ‘non-natural’ activity on the defendant’s land escaping and causing harm Some private nuisances may also give rise to a statutory nuisance, such as noise nuisance, on which see Practice Note: Neighbour disputes—noise and nuisance. For more detailed guidance on the types of scenario that may give rise to a claim in private nuisance, the applicable

This Practice Note explains about nullity proceedings in relation to civil partnerships, including the difference between a void or voidable civil partnership. It also covers the circumstances in which a court cannot make a nullity order. The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) came into effect on 6 April 2022. Although DDSA 2020 made changes to the law in relation to proceedings for divorce, dissolution and (judicial) separation, it did not make any substantive changes to the law regarding nullity proceedings. The grounds on which a marriage or civil partnership may be void or voidable therefore remain unchanged. There were however some consequential changes made to the procedure under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955 that affect applications for nullity issued on or after 6 April 2022, but proceedings issued by the court on or before 5 April 2022 continue to progress under the pre-DDSA 2020 procedure and such applications are not impacted by the consequential changes to procedure. See Practice Note: Introduction to the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020. When

Nullum crimen sine lege is the criminal law principle that a person cannot be convicted of an offence unless the conduct was clearly defined as a crime by law at the time it was committed. It protects legal certainty and the rule of law by prohibiting retroactive criminal liability and vague or excessively elastic interpretations of criminal offences. In the UK and Ireland it is not usually stated in Latin in statutes, but is reflected in constitutional and human rights instruments, including Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998 (England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (NI) Order, and in Irish constitutional jurisprudence on legality and foreseeability in criminal law. Courts apply the principle when interpreting criminal statutes and common law offences, limiting judicial development of the law where this would amount to creating a new offence or extending existing offences in an unforeseeable way. Across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, its practical effect is broadly consistent: criminal liability must be based on pre-existing, accessible and sufficiently precise law.

A means of allocating numbers to network operators who then allocate individual numbers to their customers. The sizes of blocks for the different parts of the Specified Numbering Scheme are identified in the Numbering Conventions.

The facility which enables a customer to transfer from one communications provider to another and retain their number block or, a series of numbers from within a number block.

The below data shows the number of Home Office-approved employer sponsors, according to visa route, as listed on the Home Office’s register of licenced sponsors on the specified date. As at 12 January 2024, Skilled Worker sponsors account for the majority of employers (over 82%). 9.53% of sponsors have a Global Business Mobility-Senior or Specialist Worker licence, and the remaining 13 work routes account for the remaining 7.74%.

The below data shows the number of Home Office-approved employer sponsors, according to visa route, as listed on the Home Office’s register of licenced sponsors on the specified date. As at 13 April 2026, Skilled Worker sponsors account for the majority of employers (over 85.96%). 7.38% of sponsors have a Global Business Mobility-Senior or Specialist Worker licence, and the remaining 15 work routes account for the remaining 6.66%.

The below data shows the number of Home Office-approved employer sponsors, according to visa route, as listed on the Home Office’s register of licenced sponsors on the specified date. As at today 13 August 2024, Skilled Worker sponsors account for the majority of employers (85%). 8% of sponsors have a Global Business Mobility-Senior or Specialist Worker licence, and the remaining 13 work routes account for the remaining 7%.

The below data shows the number of Home Office-approved employer sponsors, according to visa route, as listed on the Home Office’s register of licenced sponsors on the specified date. As at 13 August 2025, Skilled Worker sponsors account for the majority of employers (over 85.30%). 7.33% of sponsors have a Global Business Mobility-Senior or Specialist Worker licence, and the remaining 15 work routes account for the remaining 7.37%.

The below data shows the number of Home Office-approved employer sponsors, according to visa route, as listed on the Home Office’s register of licenced sponsors on the specified date. As at 13 August 2026, Skilled Worker sponsors account for the majority of employers (over 86,03%). 7,30% of sponsors have a Global Business Mobility-Senior or Specialist Worker licence, and the remaining 15 work routes account for the remaining 6.67%.