Recent legal news

Immigration

The government has been desperately trying to look tough on immigration and tough of the enablers of immigration, with a keystone speech by the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer KC, promising to “take back control of our borders” and expressing the fear that, without proper rules, without proper control, “we risk becoming an island of strangers”.

While the former quoted phrase sounds hackneyed and Brexity, something we’ve grown sick of hearing over the last decade, the latter phrase seemed more ominous. It was reminiscent to some of the remarks about “citizens of nowhere” from Theresa May, former Conservative Home Secretary and architect of the “hostile environment”, one of whose consequences was the Windrush Scandal; but to others it carried an even more sinister echo of another former Conservative politician, Enoch Powell, whose divisive “rivers of blood” speech, delivered in 1968, still curdles what flows in most liberal minded people’s veins. At any rate, it sounded very un-Labour, though Starmer was careful to pin the blame on the previous administration’s policies:

“So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you’re not championing growth, you’re not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You’re actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.”

He was speaking at the launch of the government’s white paper, Restoring Control over the Immigration System (CP 1326) which aimed to deliver

“lower net migration, higher skills, backing British workers, the start of repairing our social contract, which the chaos and cynicism of the last government did so much to undermine”.

For more on this:

Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry

“I rather hope that the Inquiry itself may have helped to restore some faith in the justice system. The process of exploring the issues, through careful and methodical examination of witnesses in public, and by reference to thousands of publicly disclosed documents, has hopefully reminded people that not all lawyers are bad.”

So says Jason Beer KC, Counsel to the Inquiry, in Counsel Magazine, reflecting on what he describes as a “career milestone”, leading a small team of counsel, and sharing with them the tasks of analysing all the evidence, preparing the examination of witnesses, and participating in the advocacy involved in the Inquiry.

“I think the Inquiry may have helped to show people what barristers do day in and day out — we go through the evidence with people and ask them questions about it.”

This well illustrates one of the virtues of open justice and transparency: the opportunity for the public to see how justice is done, to follow and understand its procedures, and witness for themselves the examination of witnesses, where this is permitted and possible. The widely watched public inquiry was a demonstration of the forensic process in action.

The Inquiry chair, Sir Wyn Williams announced last week that he intends to publish the first part of his final report this summer. This will focus on redress (compensation) and the human impact of the scandal. He said:

“I have always been of the view that those who have been affected by the Horizon scandal should be at the heart of the Inquiry’s work. So, it seems fitting that my conclusions on the suffering endured by so many, as well as the issue of redress, should be at the forefront of my report and published as soon as feasibly possible.”

The report will be published on the Inquiry website and laid in Parliament in line with the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.

Though the Inquiry itself may be over, the causes and consequences of the scandal are still very much in the public consciousness. Only last week at the BAFTA awards the TV drama that did so much to bring the scandal to public attention, Mr Bates vs the Post Office, won best limited drama and ITV was given a special award for commissioning the show, while BBC One won the current affairs prize for a Post Office special on BBC Breakfast. See The Guardian, ‘It spoke to the nation’ – Mr Bates vs the Post Office wins big at Bafta TV awards.

Meanwhile Exeter University’s Evidence-Based Justice Lab has published its Impacts Report from the Post Office Project: Ethics and Justice Lessons from The Horizon Scandal. This focuses on the voices of victims/survivors of the scandal, presenting accounts of the lived experience of subpostmasters (SPMs) and other workers who were accused, investigated, and in some cases pursued in civil or criminal courts by Post Office Limited (POL).

“Through the interviewee’s rich accounts, we map a range of complex harms that often include invisible outcomes associated with the longevity of the scandal and the ripple effect on secondary victims, such as children, partners, and other family members of SPMs.”

These include stigma and reputational damage, financial impacts, impacts on relations, the psychological, emotional, and physical impacts, altered futures, and suicidal ideation, survivor guilt and support. SPM victims/survivors are “particularly vulnerable to experiencing re-victimisation through unsympathetic and adversarial legal and bureaucratic mechanisms”, it says.

See also: Richard Moorhead, Understanding the impacts of the PO Scandal, reflecting on the report which he helped lead, and adding:

“a word of thanks to all those victim-survivors of the post office scandal who have shared their stories with us. Thank you for trusting us. And to everyone who came yesterday, in person and online, thank you for all your thoughts. There are several contributions that will live with me a long time. One SPM had a quiet word with me yesterday. As terrible as the experiences had been, they said, in a way, it had changed them for the better.

There is, I think , a lot to learn from all of them.”

Meanwhile Nick Wallis, whose reporting has done so much to unearth the scandal and subject it to scrutiny, is writing a new book, The Great Post Office Cover-Up, which he aims to published soon after the Inquiry’s final report. It follows his best-selling expose, The Great Post Office Scandal, which came out in 2021. Both books are available from Bath Publishing.

Law Reform

Where there’s a will there’s a way — and now the the Law Commission wants to ensure the law of wills is “fit for purpose in the modern age”. Last week it published its recommendations in its Report: Modernising Wills Law.

Currently the law on wills is largely a product of the Victorian era. It is governed by both legislation — primarily the Wills Act 1837 — and case law, some of which has been developing for hundreds of years. Reform is now required, they say, “to take account of the changes in demographics, society, technology and medical understanding that have taken place since then”.

The Report contains two volumes: Volume I contains the commission’s recommendations for reform. These are aimed primarily at supporting testamentary freedom, protecting testators (including from undue influence and fraud), and increasing clarity and certainty in the law where possible. Volume II contains a draft Bill for a new Wills Act that would give effect to those recommendations, accompanied by explanatory notes.

The law on wills was the subject of scrutiny during the covid lockdowns, mainly in relation to temporary measures permitting remote witnessing of wills; but no doubt the experience has helped inform the proposed modernisation of the law for the electronic age, as Legal Futures explains in its coverage: Electronic wills at heart of overhaul of 188-year-old law

Wills under the current law continue to create problems that only the courts can resolve, as this other recent article in Legal Futures demonstrates. In the case of In re Clarke, decd; Tedford v Clarke [2025] EWHC 816 (Ch), the executor Henry Tedford, requested clarification on ambiguous provisions concerning estate distribution in the will of his late aunt, Veronica Clarke. Judge Cadwallader, sitting in the High Court in Liverpool, said at para 13:

“For a will to give rise to quite so many genuine questions of interpretation is unusual. This will is drafted badly. This dispute has no doubt caused at least some of the parties untold anguish, substantial expense and delay, and destroyed family relationships. The evidence suggests that the will was prepared by an apparently unqualified person holding himself out as a will writer, perhaps for money. This case demonstrates the perils of trying to save expense by using the services of unqualified persons to write wills.”

The judge added that there were separate proceedings brought by two of Ms Clarke’s siblings for Mr Tedford’s removal as executor.

Like divorce, disputes over wills also continue to provide a regular source of news stories for the mainstream media, particularly if they involve the rich and famous. Such disputes are not necessarily worth coverage in the law reports, however, unless they set a precedent or otherwise develop the common law.

Data protection (or lack of it)

As we go to press, the Ministry of Justice has just announced, or belatedly admitted, a massive cybersecurity data breach of the online legal aid adminstration system: Legal Aid Data Breach.

“On Wednesday 23 April, we became aware of a cyber-attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s online digital services. These are the services through which legal aid providers log their work and receive payment from the Government.

On Friday 16 May we discovered the attack was more extensive than originally understood and that the group behind it had accessed a large amount of information relating to legal aid applicants. We believe the group has accessed and downloaded a significant amount of personal data from those who applied for legal aid through our digital service since 2010.”

The press release urges anyone who might have applied for legal aid in the last 15 years to take steps to “take steps to safeguard themselves”, and helpfully concludes with the advice:

“Further information on how to protect yourself from the impact of a data breach can be found on the NCSC website.”

Courts

The UK has nominated three potential judges to replace Tim Eicke KC on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. A member of the Court is elected in respect of each of the 46 member States of the Council of Europe, by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), from lists of 3 candidates proposed by each State. Following an open selection process administered by the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales, the United Kingdom candidates, listed in alphabetical order, are:

  • Mr Hugh Mercer KC, a UK barrister and deputy High Court judge
  • Ms Deok Joo Rhee KC, a UK barrister
  • Mr Sam Wordsworth KC, a UK barrister

One of these candidates will be elected by PACE during its plenary session 23 to 27 June 2025 for a 9-year term from 12 September 2025.

Dates and deadlines

Public Lecture: Open Justice: Fit for Purpose

Date/time: Wednesday 4 June, 17:00 to 19:00

Location: Green Templeton College, University of Oxford

Speaker: The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin

About: Sir Matthew Nicklin was appointed a Justice of the High Court in October 2017. He is chair of the Transparency and Open Justice Panel, which was created by the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales in 2024.

This event is an initiative of the Courts and Tribunals Observers’ Network, supported by the Sheila Kitzinger Programme at Green Templeton College. To request a livestream link for the event, please email academic.projects@gtc.ox.ac.uk. Please note that the quality of the livestream will be limited as this is primarily designed as an in-person event.

Register: https://www.gtc.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/event/open-justice-fit-for-purpose/

On Oxford Talks: https://talks.ox.ac.uk/talks/id/b46d1d1f-0253-4909-b5ba-7f67739fdf16/

Recent case summaries from ICLR

A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4

CRIME — Public order — Public assembly: R (National Council for Civil Liberties) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 02 May 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 571; [2025] WLR(D) 238, CA

DESIGN — European Union registered design — Validity: Praesidiad Holding BVBA (formerly Betafence Holding BVBA) v Zaun Ltd, 09 May 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 591; [2025] WLR(D) 256, CA

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS — Employment Appeal Tribunal — Appeal to: Melki v Bouygues E & S Contracting UK Ltd, 09 May 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 585; [2025] WLR(D) 250, CA

INSURANCE — Contract — Construction: Carbis Bay Hotel Ltd v American International Group Ltd, 09 May 2025 [2025] EWHC 1041 (Comm); [2025] WLR(D) 259, KBD

LAND REGISTRATION — Registration — Adverse possession: Nazir v Begum, 07 May 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 587; [2025] WLR(D) 252, CA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Accommodation available for occupation: Beach v South Hams District Council, 09 May 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 609; [2025] WLR(D) 264, CA

MENTAL CAPACITY — Person lacking capacity — Claimant: Johnston v Financial Ombudsman Service, 08 May 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 551; [2025] WLR(D) 246, CA

NATIONALITY — British citizenship — Deprivation: U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 12 May 2025 [2025] UKSC 19; [2025] WLR(D) 260, SC(E)

PLANNING — Development — Local authority’s development plan: R (Tesco Stores Ltd) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, 09 May 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 610; [2025] WLR(D) 253, CA

PRACTICE — Interim payment — Variation: Celestial Aviation Trading Ireland Ltd v Volga-Dnper Logistics BV, 13 May 2025 [2025] EWHC 1156 (Comm); [2025] WLR(D) 265, KBD

Recent case comments on ICLR

Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:

Global Freedom of Expression: Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting Co v Azerbaijan: expands expression: Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting Co v Azerbaijan (Appn no. 257/12), ECtHR

Brett Wilson Media and Communications Law Blog: High Court provides commentary on truth, allegations of criminal conduct, sex life, and acts in public, in privacy cases: Mullen v Lyles[2025] EWHC 645 (KB), KBD

A Lawyer Writes: Liberty to protest: R (National Council for Civil Liberties) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 571, CA

Local Government Lawyer: Court of Appeal issues reasons for allowing appeal over whether councils can authorise deprivation of liberty where care order in place: J v Bath and North East Somerset Council[2025] EWCA Civ 478; [2025] WLR(D) 232, CA

Administrative Court Blog: Seeking views on “sufficiently crystallised” proposals will not always engage Gunning requirements for fair consultation: R (National Council for Civil Liberties) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 571, CA

Law Society Gazette: Representative proceedings: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council v Indivior plc [2025] EWCA Civ 40; [2025] WLR(D) 52, CA

Free Movement: Immigration adviser loses appeal against refusal to raise registration level: Scerrato v Immigration Services Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 454 (GRC), FTT

St John’s Chambers: A case concerning whether a Local Authority can consent to the confinement of a child in its care, such that there is no requirement for a deprivation of liberty order from the court: J v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2025] EWCA Civ 478; [2025] WLR(D) 232, CA

Lawyer Watch: This is not an AI case: R (Ayinde) v Haringey London Borough Council[2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin), KBD

Nearly Legal: Hotel rooms and intentional homelessness: Beach v South Hams District Council [2025] EWCA Civ 609, CA

12 King’s Bench Walk: Clarke v Poole: To reopen or not to reopen: Clarke v Poole [2025] EWCA Civ 447, CA

Mental Capacity Law and Policy: Litigation capacity — and what happens if you never had it? Johnston v Financial Ombudsman Service [2025] EWCA Civ 551; [2025] WLR(D) 246, CA

Local Government Lawyer: High Court finds council consultation on low traffic neighbourhood scheme was flawed: R (West Dulwich Service Station Ltd) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2025] EWHC 1111 (Admin), KBD

Free Movement: Fresh claim rejection successfully challenged in Upper Tribunal: R (DK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 29 Apr 2025 Judgment, UT

UK Human Rights Blog: Roll up roll up? Human rights group’s challenge to Israeli arms supply proceeds at speed: R (Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade [2025] EWHC 173 (Admin), KBD

Doughty Street Chambers: High Court finds defamatory paedophile meanings in Paisley v Linehan judgment: Paisley v Linehan [2025] EWHC 228 (KB), KBD

Hailsham Chambers: Q: “What does a claimant have to prove to show that a valuer was negligent?” A: “Exactly what you always thought had to be proven. But maybe that’s wrong.” Bratt v Jones [2025] EWCA Civ 562; [2025] WLR(D) 243, CA

Francis Taylor Building: High Court Finds West Dulwich Low Traffic Neighbourhood Unlawful: WDAG v LB Lambeth: R (West Dulwich Service Station Ltd) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2025] EWHC 1111 (Admin), KBD

Exchange chambers: case comment on Bilta (UK) Ltd v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18 [2025] UKSC 18, SC(E)

Local Government Lawyer: Protesters fail in JR bid over “incorrect” planning guidance: R (Howard) v Manchester City Council[2025] EWHC 1047 (Admin), KBD

And finally…

ICLR news: we’re hiring!

We are currently considering applications from suitably qualified barristers or solicitors to work in our reporter team, based on Chancery Lane and at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The role provides the core value-add for the work of ICLR. It involves monitoring cases, assessing judgments for reportability, creating metadata for all assessed judgments, drafting law reports for cases selected as reportable and providing further intelligence on these decisions and outputs as required.

Suitable for either a newly qualified lawyer or someone looking for a mid-career change of scene, with the bonus of being able to witness and record the development of the common law in the senior courts as it happens.

If you think it might interest you, please send a covering letter and CV to recruitment@iclr.co.uk. The closing date for applications is 30 May 2025.

That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading, and make sure you’re signed up for our email alerts. You can also follow us on BlueSky and LinkedIn

This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation.

Featured image: photo of road sign taken by Paul Magrath.