‘It is notoriously difficult to successfully appeal costs decisions. In F & C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy (No 3) [2012] EWCA Civ 843, Davis LJ explained that costs orders involve an evaluative exercise entrusted to the trial judge, whose familiarity with the case places them in a position that an appellate court cannot replicate. It follows that an appellate court will interfere only where the judge has erred in principle, considered irrelevant factors, overlooked relevant matters or reached a decision that is plainly unsustainable (see also SCT Finance v Bolton [2002] EWCA Civ 56). However, in the recent case of Ward and others v Donnellan and others [2026] EWCA Civ 729, the Court of Appeal overturned the first instance judge’s decision to make no order as to costs following the failure of a claim in which both parties were dishonest.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 3rd July 2026

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

‘In contract law, an ‘election’ conventionally refers to certain finally binding choices exercised outside of court—including to rescind or affirm and to terminate or affirm a contract. This article proposes a new analysis of ‘election’, as a choice between mutually exclusive powers which destroy one another. One power (eg the power to rescind/terminate) changes the power holder’s legal relations with respect to another by destroying a primary set of rights and the other power. The other power (eg the power to affirm) destroys the former power without affecting any pre-existing set of primary rights. This ‘two power model’ explains why affirmation is binding, and thereby gives the concept of ‘election’ some explanatory value.’

Full Story

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Summer 2026

Source: doi.org

‘A wife made a chilling remark to police after murdering her husband of 27 years with a vegetable knife in their Greater Manchester home.’

Full Story

The Independent, 3rd July 2026

Source: www.independent.co.uk

‘The government, the Gambling Commission, and local authorities are responsible for regulating gambling in Great Britain.’

Full Story

House of Commons Library, 2nd July 2026

Source: commonslibrary.parliament.uk

‘Private law uses counterfactual reasoning to determine if loss—for which compensatory damages may be awarded—has been suffered because of a wrong: is the claimant in a worse position than it would have been in without the wrong? Counterfactual reasoning is, therefore, an essential part of private law. Yet, it is far from clear what this counterfactual for determining loss is. Different counterfactuals seem to be used, depending on the claim and the claim’s circumstances. Counterfactuals remain, in general, an undertheorised concept. This article proposes a new, principled theory, and conceptualisation, of counterfactuals in private law. Its central claim is that, as a rule, the counterfactual for determining loss is, and should be, ‘what would have happened without the wrong’, but that there are, and should be, exceptions to this rule, if normatively justifiable.’

Full Story

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Summer 2026

Source: doi.org

‘A man who was falsely convicted and spent more than five years in prison has said he felt “sick” to learn that his compensation claim has been rejected again.’

Full Story

BBC News, 5th July 2026

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

‘The Lord Chancellor has pledged to MPs that legislation to curb SLAPPs would be brought forward by the end of this Parliament – and hinted it may be sooner.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 6th July2026

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

‘Annie’s lawyers argue that prosecution was so badly executed it breached her human rights.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 4th July 2026

Source: www.theguardian.com

‘A prison officer has been spared an immediate jail term after engaging in a romantic relationship with an inmate, an affair a judge branded as far more serious than merely “stupid”.’

Full Story

The Independent, 3rd July 2026

Source: www.independent.co.uk

‘It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that a person should not be criminalised unless they have the capacity and a fair opportunity to comply with the law. Recognising that children, particularly younger ones, undergo rapidly evolving neurodevelopmental processes during which their criminal capacity remains underdeveloped, many jurisdictions have adopted a minimum age of criminal responsibility. Furthermore, the presumption of doli incapax is available in some jurisdictions to protect children who fail to understand the wrongfulness of their acts from being criminalised. While both protections are useful, this article argues that they are insufficient in fully protecting unblameworthy children from criminalisation. It is proposed that, from both neuroscientific and criminal law perspectives, a child immaturity defence should be introduced to protect children who (i) lack the capacity to appreciate the nature or consequences of their criminal conduct or (ii) are unable to exercise adequate control over that conduct. The potential challenges in enacting the defence will also be examined.’

Full Story

Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 30th June 2026

Source: doi.org

‘Criminal investigators in the UK say they have uncovered a “truly international network” of organised drug-facilitated sexual assault in which victims are sedated before being raped and sexually assaulted.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 2nd July 2026

Source: www.theguardian.com

‘Two 15-year-old boys who were spared custody for raping two girls have been sentenced to four years’ detention after the court of appeal ruled their sentences were “unduly lenient”.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 2nd July 2026

Source: www.theguardian.com

‘On 14 November 2025, the High Court of England and Wales handed down judgment in the largest environmental mass tort in UK history: the group claim by more than 600,000 Brazilian victims of the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam against the mining giant BHP Group. In Município de Mariana v BHP Group, the Court found BHP (through its UK and Australian-listed parent companies) liable on both strict liability and negligence grounds under Brazilian law.’

Full Story

Legal Studies, 15th June 2026

Source: www.cambridge.org

‘The Crown Prosecution Service may face further action over an inaccurate press release issued after the first sentencing hearing of three boys over the rape of two girls in Fordingbridge.’

Full Story

The Independent, 2nd July 2026

Source: www.independent.co.uk

‘The right not to be unfairly dismissed has been a remarkably constant force in employment law since its introduction over 50 years ago. Unfair dismissal law was therefore overdue for some attention when the incoming Government was planning a major overhaul of employment rights, described as the ‘biggest single upgrade of employment rights in a generation’ and now implemented in the Employment Rights Act 2025. After strong opposition in the House of Lords, the Government moved to provide an amendedpackage, retaining a six-month qualifying period of employment and removing the upper limit on the compensatory award. In this contribution, I discuss the likely effects of these changes to the law, analysing the human rights implications of the Act and placing the amendments in a wider comparative context. I conclude that, although the Act holds great significance, particularly for those who would previously have been excluded from making any claim before the Employment Tribunal, they do not amount to the generational upgrade that may be seen in other areas of labour law. Severe deficiencies in the standard to which working people are protected from unjust dismissal decisions remain untouched by the new legislation. The Act is, perhaps, a once-in-a-generation opportunity missed.’

Full Story

Industrial Law Journal, 17th June 2026

Source: doi.org

‘A man who knocked a pedestrian unconscious with an electric motorbike and fled the scene has received a 12-month suspended sentence.’

Full Story

BBC News, 2nd July 2026

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

‘It has been a decade since the decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 was delivered, which definitively established a patient-focused test for deciding whether a healthcare professional (HCP) is under a duty to warn their patient of inherent risks. Given the significant cadre of cases since, it is an appropriate juncture to assess Montgomery’s implications for HCPs and for their advisers in two important respects, so as to develop a ‘Montgomery map’ or guide. First, in the ‘consultation phase’ between diagnosis and treatment—and in which the duty to warn is nestled—the Bolam test (as modified by the Bolitho ‘gloss’) remains the governing test of breach to a much greater extent than may have been anticipated when Montgomery’s patient-centric approach was affirmed, courtesy of McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board [2023] UKSC 26. It is argued that Montgomery and McCulloch are entirely reconcilable within the nuanced landscape that the ‘consultation phase’ entails. Secondly, after a decade’s worth of case law, it is now possible to provide a detailed multi-factorial framework as to what, really, renders a risk so ‘material’ that it ought to be disclosed in order to comply with the Montgomery duty.’

Full Story

Medical Law Review, 11th June 2026

Source: doi.org

‘A potential client has used AI to abuse a partner at a Bristol law firm, accusing her of being a “greedy solicitor” and a “loathsome criminal” for wanting to charge for a consultation.’

Full Story

Legal futures, 2nd July 2026

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk