The Prime Minister has announced that offenders convicted of rape, serious child sexual offences and grooming offences will be excluded from forthcoming sentencing changes under the Sentencing Act 2026. The government states that these offences will be added to the existing exclusions, which already apply to offenders serving life sentences and those found by the courts to pose the highest risk to the public, meaning that their custodial sentences will remain unchanged. It adds that the wider sentencing changes will now commence on 1 October 2026 instead of starting in September 2026 to allow probation services to prepare for releases and to give victims an opportunity to have a say on licence conditions. Alongside these changes, the government will introduce stronger post-release supervision for offenders convicted of rape and serious child sexual offences who have served their custodial sentences, including GPS trail monitoring, strengthened probation supervision and mandatory consideration of referral to Approved Premises. It will also provide a £10 million package of victim support, including expanded contact with affected victims, additional trauma-informed services and a dedicated victim helpline.

Personal Injury analysis: A consultation by the Department of Health (DoH), which sought views on a proposed rapid resolution and redress (RRR) scheme aimed at reducing the number of severe avoidable birth injuries in the NHS closed last month, with interested parties expressing concern at a lack of detail and potentially unworkable proposals. Agata Usewicz, head of the medical negligence team at Hodge Jones & Allen, looks in greater depth at the response from stakeholders, and what could happen next.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In what circumstances can a guarantor avoid a call on the guarantee by the lender on the ground of misrepresentation? Joseph Curl, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings, reviews the appellate decision in Gaind v Dunbar Assets plc in which he acted for the lender.

Family analysis: In a series of three judgments, His Honour Judge Hess (sitting as a deputy High Court judge), in complex and high value divorce proceedings, made findings of a sham trust against the husband, who had tried to maintain that it was a legitimate trust set up to preserve the very considerable wealth the couple had built up during the marriage. The judge went on to award the wife a lump sum of £15m and to extend his previous order for the appointment of receivers against the husband’s corporate assets by reason of his persistent, wilful and continuing non-compliance with previous orders. Jane Keir, partner at Kingsley Napley LLP, examines the issues.

TMT analysis: The High Court has dismissed this rare claim for slander and trespass to the person that arose out of an exchange in a Tesco store in which the claimant alleged she had been accused of being a thief by one of the shop assistants working there. The court concluded that the claimant had not proved that the words at issue had been spoken and even if that had not been the case, the words had not caused serious harm within the meaning of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013).

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court upheld a claim brought by liquidators in misfeasance/breach of duty, transaction at an undervalue, and wrongful trading against the sole director of a storage company in liquidation. The case is interesting for the relatively rare success of wrongful trading, and the court’s finding that this was ‘an ill-thought out “informal winding up” of the company’s affairs’, where the proper course of action would have been an earlier formal winding up process. The director had shut down the company’s business, gifting away a customer list and entire sections of the business (such as the debtor book), largely to a related company of which he was sole director and shareholder. He was also liable for wrongful trading for nine months prior to the ultimate compulsory winding up, despite having instructed insolvency professionals ten months beforehand. Written by Katherine Hallett, barrister at Three Stone Chambers.

A structure that determines the eventual equity allocation between groups of shareholders. A ratchet enables a management team to increase its share of equity in a company if it is performing well. The equity allocation varies, depending on the performance of the company and the rate of return.

A structure that determines the eventual equity allocation between groups of shareholders. A ratchet enables a management team to increase its share of equity in a company if the company is performing well. The equity allocation in a company varies, depending on the performance of the company and the rate of return that the private equity firm achieves.

Local Government analysis: This case involves what the court described as the latest in the history of ‘creative attempts’ in devise schemes to reduce business rate liability, utilising the provisions under the Regs 3 and 4a of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/386) allow an exemption period for three months on an empty property but not thereafter. However, the regulations offer a potential means of circumventing the imposition of liability by providing that if an empty property was occupied for more than six weeks, and then once more became unoccupied, a fresh three-month rates exemption period could be triggered. The Rates Mitigation Scheme (RMS) utilised by the first defendant involved granting leases to the second defendant to occupy the premises, with a successive series of short leases raised as underpinning a claim for repeated exemptions of three months to apply and thus avoiding the full rates which would be otherwise be payable. The Claimant the City of London (COL)argued that this RMS was ineffective and contrary to the principles originally enunciated in W T Ramsay v Inland Revenue Commissioners (‘Ramsay’) which the Supreme Court had applied in Hurstwood Properties Ltd v Rossendale Borough Council so as to render an RMS as being of no effect as being contrary the intention of Parliament. COL also argued that the four ingredients of rateable occupation under John Laing Ltd v Kingswood Assessment Committee were not made out, especially as regards the question of benefit to the tenant. However, the court ruled the scheme to be a valid one. Written by Alan Murdie, chairman Nucleus Legal Advice.

Introduction to special damages statistics For further information, see: Introduction: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation [1]. General damages For further information, see: General damages: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [36]. Multipliers For further information, see Practice Note: The Ogden tables. Life expectation For further information, see Practice Note: Life expectation tables. ASHE For further information, see: • Average Gross Weekly Earnings from 2017 Analysis of earnings by occupation: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [191] • full-time males on adult rates: Mean gross weekly earnings (£) in 2017–2025: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [192] • full-time females on adult rates: Mean gross weekly earnings (£) in 2017–2025: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [193]–[210] Nursing charge rates For further information, see: Nursing charge rates. Motoring benefits and costs For further information, see: Motoring benefits and costs: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [231]. Prescription costs in England For further information, see: Prescription costs in England: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [261]. Foster care allowances For further information, see: Foster care allowances: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation

HMRC has published the rates and thresholds for employers for 2024-25

HMRC has published the rates and thresholds for employers for 2025-2026.