Recent legal news

Regulation

The water industry has been widely criticised for persistent and egregious leaks and sewage spills and suppliers have continued to ask their customers to pay more on their bills while handing out bonuses to management and dividends to their investors. So how good is the industry’s regulation?

In its recent “value for money report”, Regulating for investment and outcomes in the water sector (25 Apr 2025) the National Audit Office “examines the effectiveness of the regulatory regime in delivering long-term objectives, incentivising operational performance improvements, and attracting the investment needed to meet the government’s specified outcomes.”

In England and Wales, the supply of clean drinking water to homes is predominantly managed by 16 companies, of which 11 also supply wastewater services. The work they do, and the amount they charge the public for their services, is overseen by three regulators, who are responsible for protecting the interests of the public and the environment, under policies set by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

The Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) is responsible for ensuring the plans are funded appropriately, and set an expected rate of return to investors commensurate with the risk. Ofwat sets the sector’s funding envelope for every company every five years through the price review (PR) process. The Environment Agency (EA) regulates for the impact on rivers and other water bodies and oversees seven long-term plans and planning frameworks that water companies produce and work to. The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) regulates for drinking water quality and sufficiency.

The NAO report concludes that DEFRA and the water sector’s regulators

“have not encouraged water companies to spend what they need to deliver the performance expected. The sector now faces significant environmental and supply challenges … The regulators have taken steps to incentivise companies to improve their performance and align investor and customer interests, but both consumer trust and the financial resilience of the sector have declined.”

As for the other solutions to the problems, The Times reports the assertion by campaign groups that Jail sentences for bosses of polluting water firms an ‘empty threat’. It says that although the government recently gave judges the power to jail water firm bosses for up to two years if they cover up sewage spills, the law is unlikely to be enforced by the Environment Agency, which is understaffed and demoralised. Moreover, the new powers were

“unlikely to result in any prosecutions because they targeted bosses who cover up pollution incidents, not those who let them happen in the first place, and cover-ups were exceptionally difficult to prove in court.”

Legal professions

As publicly paid key workers, criminal barristers should have their remuneration reviewed and recommendations made by a pay review body (PRB), the chair of the Criminal Bar Association said last week. In her Monday Message 28.04.25, Mary Prior KC said 2.5m workers were already covered by PRBs, including police, prison staff, the National Crime Agency, civil servants, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Judiciary and Members of Parliament. Why not criminal barristers as well?

“There are increasing requests from a variety of agencies for us to produce papers, work on improvements, provide free training and education, recruit and retain practitioners — and yet what is there in return for a profession on its knees? We are told that there is no money. There is always money in an emergency and there is money for 2.5 million workers to have an annual pay award. This is an emergency, and we urge the Government not to make the mistake of relying on our goodwill and assuming that we will just carry on. Time is running out.”

The suggestion was prompted by the results from the CBA National Survey 2025.

See also: Joshua Rozenberg, A Lawyer Writes: Barristers seek pay body.

Courts

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, outlined his vision for The Digital Justice System — an engine for resolving disputes. He was giving the Keynote Speech at the International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) held at Greenwich University on 30 April 2025. He said the Digital Justice System was not some “vast costly digital infrastructure to resolve everyone’s business, financial and consumer disputes online in one place at gov.uk” but, rather, a more agile system that “builds on all the existing provisions for pre-action dispute resolution that is already available”. He explained:

“There are ombuds portals in numerous sectors, mostly financed by industry or financial organisations . There are mediation portals and arbitration portals. There is the Official Injury Portal dealing with hundreds of thousands of personal injury claims each year. And there are online legal advice platforms such as Advicenow, ACAS and the Citizens Advice Bureau. The problem is that these provisions are not properly connected in a way that allows individuals to find the right advice and the right dispute resolution mechanism quickly and efficiently.”

The intention was to fit the pieces of this vast engine together to make “one smooth operating system”. That was where the rules or guidance to be provided by the new Online Procedure Rules Committee (the OPRC) came in. By developing rules and procedures, it would gradually build up a mechanism to enable people to diagnose and resolve all sorts of minor disputes which it would be costly and inefficient to litigate, but which would otherwise cause misery and economic harm.

AI would be instrumental in providing the diagnosis and direction for the problem solving within the Digital Justice System, but it would not replace lawyers, he said. It could even help judges, for whom updated guidance had recently been published.

Moreover, this could be an area in which Britain was in the lead:

“I am not aware of other jurisdictions that are trying to bring coherence to the pre-action, mediation and ombuds space in quite the way that I envisage happening, through the OPRC, here. Many jurisdictions are, however, trying to allow legal claims to be brought and progressed to a greater or lesser extent online. I think we are in a peculiarly advantageous position here in England and Wales, because we already have so many online pre-action platforms providing mediation and dispute resolution in civil, family and tribunals cases.”

Army

The Ministry of Justice recently announced the appointment of four new members of the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors (ACCO). We suspect many will not have heard of ACCO, and may be wondering what it is and what it does. The MOJ announcement explains:

The Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors (ACCO) makes recommendations on conscientious objection claims from Armed Forces personnel where an application to retire or resign a commission or for discharge on the grounds of conscience have not been accepted by service authorities. ACCO is a non-statutory Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Ministry of Defence.

It was established in 1970, but its history can be traced back to the tribunals set up by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939. The 1970 arrangements included an agreement that the Lord Chancellor appoints to the public appointee roles on the Committee to ensure that ACCO maintains its independence from the MOD.

It is for this reason that MOJ manages the campaign. As public appointments, the roles are subject to the provisions of the Governance Code on Public Appointments (the Code). Owned by the Cabinet Office, the Code sets out the principles governing such recruitment and the role of Ministers. Roles covered by the Code are also subject to regulation by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments (CPA).

Now who could possibly object to that?

Recent case summaries from ICLR

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

ARBITRATION — Jurisdiction — Challenge: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd v Republic of India, 17 Apr 2025 [2025] EWHC 964 (Comm); [2025] WLR(D) 221, KBD

CHILDREN — Child in care — Deprivation of liberty: J v Bath and North East Somerset Council, 29 Apr 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 478; [2025] WLR(D) 232, CA

CONTRACT — Parties — Enforcement by third party: HNW Lending Ltd v Lawrence, 17 Apr 2025 [2025] EWHC 908 (Ch); [2025] WLR(D) 216, Ch D

COSTS — Security for costs — Application against non-party: Jones v Persons Unknown, 29 Apr 2025 [2025] EWHC 977 (Comm); [2025] WLR(D) 235, KBD

CRIME — Public order — Public assembly; NATURAL JUSTICE — Consultation by public body — Fairness: 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

EMPLOYMENT — Transfer of undertaking — Effect of transfer: ABC v Huntercombe (No 12) Ltd, 24 Apr 2025 [2025] EWHC 1000 (KB); [2025] WLR(D) 234, KBD

PATENT — Court — Practice: Ahmad v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, 22 Apr 2025 [2025] EWHC 936 (Pat); [2025] WLR(D) 233, Ch D

MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Policy guidance — Lawfulness: R (British Medical Association) v General Medical Council, 17 Apr 2025 [2025] EWHC 960 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 239, KBD

PRIVY COUNCIL — Jurisdiction — Inherent jurisdiction to revisit previous advice: Farrington v The King, 22 Apr 2025 [2025] UKPC 21; [2025] WLR(D) 240, PC

SUPREME COURT — Practice — Findings of fact; CRIME — Practice — Defence statement: R v Perry, 30 Apr 2025 [2025] UKSC 17; [2025] WLR(D) 236, SC(E)

Recent case comments on ICLR

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

Global Freedom of Expression: Vyacheslavova v. Ukraine: expands expression: Vyacheslavova v Ukraine (Appn no. 39553/16), ECtHR

St John’s Chambers: Prescribed Requirements and Section 21 Notices: service by post after Khan v D’Aubigny [2025] EWCA Civ 11; [2025] WLR(D) 28, CA

2 Hare Court chambers: Functus officio? The unresolved question of the Home Secretary’s power to withdraw or amend extradition orders: Lloyd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 656 (Admin), KBD

4 New Square: Barclays revisited: the High Court re-opens the door for claimants in securities litigation cases: Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered plc [2025] EWHC 698 (Ch), Ch D

Free Movement: Court of Appeal confirms that application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court does not prevent deportation: R (Geddes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 353; [2025] WLR(D) 176, CA

Law & Religion UK: Restoring a listed memorial? Re Tuxford War Memorial: In re Tuxford War Memorial [2025] ECC S&N 1, Const Ct

Free Movement: Refugee succeeds in High Court challenge to negative trafficking decision: R (Alnoor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2025] EWHC 922 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 210, KBD

Law Society Gazette: Re Z: Surrogacy arrangements overseas: Z (Foreign Surrogacy) [2024] EWFC 304, Fam Ct

Nearly Legal: What else to do? Disability discrimination and justificationv Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership [2025] EWHC 933 (KB), KBD

Free Movement: Asylum Aid wins High Court challenge to the statelessness family reunion rules: Asylum Aid v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 316 (Admin); PDF Download, KBD

12 King’s Bench Walk: For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers: four lessons for employers: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16; [2025] WLR(D) 211, SC(E)

4 New Square: Gutmann v Apple — Case Note: Gutmann v Apple Inc [2025] EWCA Civ 459; [2025] WLR(D) 225, CA

2 Hare Court: The consequences of admitting evidence through the wrong gateway: Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 318 (Admin), KBD

Administrative Court Blog: Four elements to proportionality in discrimination cases: McCarron, Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 23, KBD (NI)

Inforrm’s Blog: Aluko v Barton, Former footballer’s tweets were defamatory: Aluko v Barton[2025] EWHC 853 (KB), KBD

2 Hare Court: the relevance of criminal sentences in regulatory proceedings: Adebayo v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 315 (Admin), KBD

Local Government Lawyer: Judge dismisses application for declaration of non-parentage: In re A Child (Application for a declaration of non-parentage post adoption) [2025] EWFC 109, Fam Ct

2 Hare Court: The importance of particularisation — EQ v Disclosure and Barring Service [2025] UKUT 38 (AAC), UT

12 King’s Bench Walk: Low asbestos exposure: the Court of Appeal delivers judgment in Johnstone v Fawcett’s Garage (Newbury) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 467, CA

2 Hare Court: how many bites of the cherry should an applicant be afforded after they have been erased from the register? Sengupta v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 123 (Admin), KBD

Free Movement: Court of Appeal upholds decision to refuse extension of time to woman deprived of British citizenship: F4 v Secretary of State for Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 291, CA

2 Hare Court: The relevance (or otherwise) of the Equality Act 2010 — General Medical Council v Shah [2025] EWHC 899 (Admin), KBD

Park Square barristers: Beyond the headlines: Court judgment on the definition of a woman within the realms of the Equality Act 2010: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16; [2025] WLR(D) 211, SC(Sc)

Legal Futures: High Court criticises City firm for breaching judgment embargo: R (Glaister) v Assistant Coroner For North Wales [2025] EWHC 1018 (Admin), KBD

Pump Court chambers: The implications of Re X&Y on the High Court’s ability to revoke adoption orders: In re X and Y (Revocation of Adoption Orders)[2025] EWCA Civ 2; [2025] WLR(D) 36, CA

Global Freedom of Expression: Kobaliya v. Russia: expands expression Kobaliya v Russia (Appn no. 39446/16), ECtHR

2 Hare Court: The assessment of credibility and sufficiency of reasons: an appeal on the facts: Hindle v The Nursing And Midwifery Council [2025] EWHC 373 (Admin), KBD

And finally…

ICLR Pupillage Award

If you are taking up pupillage at any time between October 2025 and October 2026, and being paid a total for the pupillage year (including guaranteed earnings) of no more than £37,500 (in London) or £32,500 (outside London), you could receive our top-up award of a further £13,000. The application window closes on 30 June 2025.

Find out more: ICLR Pupillage Award 2025

That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading, and make sure you’re signed up for our email alerts. Don’t forget you can also now find ICLR on BlueSky.

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: water management concept, via Shutterstock.