Bright Blue has published a report examining how modern slavery protections operate within the UK asylum system. The report analyses trends in modern slavery and human trafficking among asylum seekers, the effectiveness of existing policies and the barriers faced by victims. It notes that referrals to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) have increased in recent years, and that more than 90% of referrals from immigration detention receive a positive reasonable grounds decision.

IP analysis: Virgin brought a claim against the Brightline for damages for alleged repudiatory breach of a trade mark licence agreement (TMLA). Brightline’s defence was that it was entitled to terminate the TMLA pursuant to a clause that allowed it to terminate if the Virgin brand had ceased to be a ‘brand of international high repute’ or the Marks ‘no longer are of high quality status and synonymous with the Purpose and Brand Values’ and if continued use of the Marks would cause material damage to Brightline’s reputation or the value of its business. As Brightline was deemed to have failed to prove that the conditions of the clause applied, Virgin was successful in claiming a repudiatory breach of the agreement. Written by Milena Velikova, trade mark attorney and Helene Whelbourn, legal director, at Lee & Thompson.

What is BYOD? Bring your own device (BYOD) refers to arrangements where an organisation allows employees to connect to its corporate IT network using their own communications devices for specific, work-related purposes. BYOD arrangements may cover a range of devices, including laptops, tablets and smartphones. This Practice Note focuses on BYOD in the employment relationship. Key risks and benefits of BYOD Item Potential benefits Potential downsides and risks Cost There is a cost saving for the organisation:—in not having to invest in procurement, replacement and management of devices for employees—depending on the arrangements for sharing costs, in relation to service charges The organisation will still need to make some investment in technical solutions, training and support to enable BYOD access by employees (which may in some cases make it more expensive).If an organisation stops buying devices for employee use under existing contracts with their communications provider (which often bundle a range of products and services together), this may impact discounts received on other product/service lines. It is important, therefore, to

This Practice Note considers issues arising when multiple defendants (or co-defendants), domiciled in England and Wales, are or may be involved in proceedings in this jurisdiction, from the perspective of the claimant and the defendants. For information on the specific issues to consider with regard to liability in tortious claims which involve more than one defendant or prospective defendant, see Practice Note: Multiple tortfeasors—liability issues. For information on joint and several liability between multiple parties to a contract or between joint tortfeasors, and guidance on who should be sued in these situations, see Practice Note: Joint, several, and joint and several liability. Considerations for the claimant Where a claimant has suffered loss or damage, they may consider that more than one party is responsible for that loss or damage and will need to decide against whom to bring proceedings. This will involve consideration of many issues, including the limitation periods that apply to each claim, the merits of the claim against each potential defendant, the means of each defendant

This Practice Note considers when a public authority will owe a common law duty of care and the courts’ approach when deciding whether a duty of care exists. It looks at the significance of the statutory backdrop, including whether a claim in negligence can be brought where the existence of a common law duty would contradict the aims of a statute. It also considers when non-delegable duties and vicarious liability may arise. When will a public authority owe a duty of care? The Supreme Court considered the duty of care owed by public authorities in the cases of Michael and Robinson. In Michael, Ms Michael made a 999 call to inform the police that her former partner had threatened to kill her. However, the call handler failed to pass on the threat to kill and as a result the 999 call was given a lower priority which caused a delay in the police response. Ms Michael was killed by her ex-partner before the police arrived. In

What is a private law claim for breach of statutory duty? A private law claim for breach of statutory duty is a claim that: • the defendant was under a statutory duty to do something • that something was not done, and • the breach of duty resulted in damage to the claimant A claim for breach of statutory duty that creates a private law cause of action can be brought against any entity subject to that duty, whether a public authority or a private organisation. An example is section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980), which enables highway users to sue for failure to maintain the highway. In addition, where a public authority acts in breach of a statutory duty, an individual who has been adversely affected may be entitled to bring a public law claim seeking judicial review of the authority’s actions. However, many statutory duties do not give rise to a cause of action in private law. Most claims against public authorities are

A personal injury claim based on a breach of a statutory duty may be possible against any entity that is subject to that duty whether a public authority or a private body. However, not many statutory provisions give rise to a cause of action in private law. The difficulty arises in determining which statutory provisions permit a claimant to pursue a claim for a breach of statutory duty. Statutory provision expressly permits claimants to bring a claim for breach of statutory duty Sometimes the legislation will make it plain that a failure to fulfil the relevant duty (effectively or at all) is intended to create a right of action (ie to entitle claimants to sue for breach of statutory duty). Where the legislation itself expressly (a) creates a right of action, or (b) modifies existing common law duties, then the position should be relatively straightforward. The best known example for the purposes of personal injury lawyers is the right to sue if a claimant is injured because of the highway authority’s

This Practice Note provides a summary of the key factors in bringing a private prosecution. It is designed to provide a practical resource to those considering bringing a private prosecution. For an introduction to private prosecutions generally, see Practice Note: Private prosecutions—an introductory guide. Starting a private prosecution—initial considerations Private prosecutors may represent themselves, or they may be represented by lawyers engaged by them to conduct the proceedings. The following are some of the initial matters for lawyers and private prosecutors (the private prosecution team) to take into account when considering starting a private prosecution. Duties of the private prosecutor and prosecution team A private prosecutor is under the same duty as a public prosecutor to act as a minister of justice. In order to comply with this duty, although not mandatory, prosecutors should aim to comply with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Code for Crown Prosecutors. Lawyers who have conduct of private prosecutions should observe the highest standards of integrity, and must act in the public interest, as

This Practice Note considers the different legal bases for bringing a professional negligence claim, ie founding the existence of the professional’s duty to the claimant. Sometimes the question of whether a duty exists is bound up with questions as to the specific loss being sought to be recovered and thus the scope of the duty and related issues, for guidance on which see: Professional negligence claim—scope of duty, causation and remoteness—checklist and related content. For guidance on how to commence a professional negligence claim, see Practice Notes: • Starting a professional negligence claim—a practical guide • Pleading professional negligence claims—worked hypothetical examples and related precedents For guidance on the standard of care in professional negligence claims, see Practice Notes: • Standard of care in professional negligence claims • Standard of care—solicitors and barristers Guidance on parties to professional negligence claims and the role of the Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence claims includes Practice Note: Professional negligence claims—the pre-action protocol. For a summary of illustrative

Forthcoming changes: In measures expected to come into force on 1 October 2026, time limits for making certain claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) will be increased from three months to six months. The changes are set out in section 152 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) and ERA 2025, Schedule 12 (not yet in force), and in The Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 (draft), The Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 (draft) and The Employee Study and Training (Procedural Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/473. This Precedent will be updated as soon as the relevant statutory instruments are made. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. This guide provides general information about bringing a claim in the employment tribunal in England and Wales, the formalities that must be complied with for presenting a valid claim, an outline of the procedure involved and important

Dispute Resolution analysis: Makin was a litigant who was made the subject of an anonymity order in 2014. By 2021, there were concerns that the order was no longer justified. In 2023, the order was removed. Mrs Justice May considered the court’s jurisdiction to do so and held that it was right to remove the protection because—(a) there were powerful public interest factors in favour of now identifying Makin (who had acted improperly in conducting his own case as a solicitor advocate); and (b) the original factors justifying anonymity no longer outweighed the public interest in open justice. Although this is a fairly extreme case, it explores the proper ambit of anonymity orders and when they ought to be made or revoked. Written by Matthew McGhee, barrister at Twenty Essex.

Property Disputes analysis: What constitutes a distinct cause of action from a claim for damages for trespass? Andy Creer, barrister at Hardwicke, considers the judgment handed down in Farrar v Leongreen.