The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal in CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5, holding that ‘lost years’ damages are recoverable by child claimants whose life expectancy has been reduced as a result of clinical negligence. Overruling the Court of Appeal’s decision in Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71, the Court held that there was no principled basis for excluding young children from claiming financial losses for the years of expected life lost. The judgment confirms consistency with earlier House of Lords authorities, including Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136 and Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27. The case has been remitted to the trial judge to determine whether such damages should be awarded and if so, in what sum. Richard Baker KC, barrister at 7BR and Sarah Pritchard KC, barrister at Kings Chambers provide commentary on the judgment.

Ireland—Banking & Financial Service analysis: This article, was written by Colin Rooney of Arthur Cox LLP. The CJEU’s recent judgment clarifies when data protection requests are ‘manifestly excessive,’ providing guidance for controllers on their obligations regarding data subject rights requests.

MLex: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has sought to address criticism that its ‘name and shame’ policy fails to factor in its growth and competitiveness objective. In a consultation published on 28 November 2024, it said the plan to name some companies that come under investigation could in fact boost growth and competitiveness if it reduces the financial crime burden and helps to educate smaller firms. While the industry has generally welcomed concessions outlined by the FCA, some say it still goes too far.

Immigration analysis: On 29 February 2024 the Home Office published 12 of the 14 inspection reports completed by the previous Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), David Neal, whose appointment was terminated on 20 February 2024. One of these reports was on the ICIBI’s re-inspection of ePassport gates (eGates), which was originally sent to the Home Secretary in May 2023 and is highly critical of various aspects. The Home Office has also published its response to the report. This analysis looks at what the report found, and the implications.

Tax analysis: David Milne KC, of Pump Court Tax Chambers, reviews the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) judgment in Barclays Bank plc.

What is the ‘One IPO’ transformation programme? This Practice Note tracks developments in the UK Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) ‘One IPO’ transformation programme. It summarises the background to the programme, the key steps that are proposed, and the timeline for carrying out each stage of the programme. It also sets out details of the consultations underpinning the programme and the responses to them. The ‘One IPO’ transformation programme is designed to modernise and improve the IPO’s services. The IPO plans to replace its existing processes with a digital system for all registered IP rights (patents, trade marks and designs). The proposed changes to the current legal framework (which assumes a system built around paper forms and correspondence) will remove legal barriers to the IPO’s digital transformation work and address inconsistencies between the different IP rights. In its Innovation and Growth Report 2025/26, the IPO said ‘when fully implemented, the One IPO system will simplify how businesses secure and manage all their UK IP rights from a single authenticated account. Simpler, more reliable services reduce friction and support faster commercialisation’.

EU Law analysis: Pursuant to Article 6a(1) and (2) of Directive 98/6/EC on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (EU Price Indication Directive), any announcement of a price reduction must indicate the prior price applied by the trader for a determined period of time prior to the application of the price reduction. The ‘prior price’ is the lowest price applied by the trader during a period of time not shorter than 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction. A price reduction of a product announced by a trader in the form of a percentage, or in the form a promotional statement intended to highlight the advantageous nature of the announced price must therefore be determined on the basis of the ‘prior price’, ie the lowest price applied by the trader during a period of time not shorter than 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction. Written by Geert Bovy, partner, and Sebastian Tytgat, counsel, at Baker McKenzie.

Local Government analysis: This case involved an appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) in its determination of a ‘reasonable adjustments’ claim brought under the Equality Act 2010 ( EqA 2010). The UT upheld the appeal on the basis that the FTT had failed to properly determine the claim that had been made and had erred in its approach to the consideration of reasonable adjustments under EqA 2010, ss 20, 21 and 85. The UT considered the interplay between the legal framework for special educational needs under the Children and Families Act 2014 (CFA 2014), and the duty to make reasonable adjustments under EqA 2010. The Judge provided helpful guidance on the principles that should be considered by Tribunals when determining claims of this nature. Written by Laura Thompson, senior associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Private Client analysis: An appeal allowed in relation to how a first instance judge applied the test for capacity and clarification of the role of insight, if any, in assessing capacity. An important judgment which collates and summarises recent case law and analysis in assessing capacity and the provision of a ten-point checklist which is a must for all practitioners and those assessing capacity to be aware of and apply. Written by Oliver Studdert, partner at Irwin Mitchell LLP.

Private Client analysis: The High Court held that an adult daughter was entitled to reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) notwithstanding her earning capacity and receipt of income above subsistence benefits. Applying Ilott v The Blue Cross [2018] AC 545 and related authorities, the court found that financial need alone was insufficient but that the parties’ reconciliation, the claimant’s caring role, and the deceased’s responsibility for the prior estrangement constituted the necessary ‘special circumstances’. The decision illustrates the continuing importance of moral claims and family dynamics in adult-child claims under the I(PFD)A 1975, while also emphasising the evidential importance of properly documented financial need and expenditure. Written in partnership with Marcus Croskell, barrister at New Square Chambers.

Updates to various Worker and Temporary Worker sponsor guidance documents on 24 October 2024 confirm that the Home Office has commenced the roll-out of its new ‘Sponsor UK’ IT system, which will apply initially to invited participating sponsors on a private beta pilot in the Temporary Worker Government Authorised Exchange (GAE) route. Such sponsors are able to use the new system from 24 October 2024, and a new Annex GA1 to the ‘Sponsor a Government Authorised Exchange Worker’ guidance sets out in detail how the new system will work in its private beta form. Related amendments have been made to the general sponsor guidance documents to exclude these sponsors from various aspects (the rest of the general guidance will continue to apply to them), and to add certain additional duties. Details of the private beta pilot, and other guidance updates are set out below.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker has delivered an important decision on whether costs are capped in circumstances where a CFA is terminated mid-proceedings. The decision is of widespread importance since most CFAs (including the standard Law Society terms) ordinarily offer protection to the claimant by limiting the maximum costs which the client will be liable to pay to their solicitors. However, the situation may differ where a client initially instructs solicitors under a CFA then sacks them before the conclusion of the claim. In short, the court held that costs recoverable by a solicitor from their (former) client will not be capped where: (1) the client terminates the CFA with their initial representatives (2) the client does so before the claim has been ‘won’ and (3) the sacked solicitors exercise their right to seek costs from the former client at that point rather than await the outcome of the claim (ie to ‘stick’ rather than ‘twist’). Written by Jeremy McKeown, barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk.