Section 12 of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 applies when a Court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the ECHR right to freedom of expression. Section 12(3) provides that no such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial UNLESS the Court is satisfied that the application IS LIKELY TO ESTABLISH THAT PUBLICATION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. The standard required by Section 12(3) has been considered by the Court of Appeal in the trade mark case of BARGAIN BUSTING LTD v SHENZHEN SKE TECHNOLOGY CO LTD, between rival suppliers of economic cigarettes and threats of trade mark infringement proceedings. The case concerns the applicable threshold under Section 12(3). It is that the applicant has to be MORE LIKELY THAN NOT TO SUCCEED AT TRIAL. The whole point of Section 12(3) is to require the Court to apply a MERITS THRESHOLD before granting INTERIM RELIEF that affects freedom of expression. It necessarily follows that the Court hearing such an application has to take a view as to which party is more likely to prevail at trial, based on the available evidence and arguments. It does not mean that the Court should not exercise CASE MANAGEMENT DISCIPLINE to ensure that the time and expense devoted to such applications are appropriate. There is nothing about an interim injunction to restrain allegedly unjustified threats that would prevent the application of that approach.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
May 12th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty
MEANING OF “ HOUSE “
May 12th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in HousingZAMAN v LEEDS CITY COUNCIL (2026) UKUT 180 (LC) is concerned with financial penalties for failure to licence four flats in a converted building. The Tribunal holds that the fact a building is a HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION within the meaning of Section 254 of the Housing Act 2004 does not prevent each of the dwellings in the building from being treated as a “ house” for the purposes of the SELECTIVE LICENSING SCHEME in PART 3 of that Act.
POWERS
May 11th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in GeneralThe CRIME & POLICING ACT 2026 has been enacted. It has 257 Sections and 27 Schedules. Some provisions have come into force. Some others will do so next month.
Part 1 relates to anti-social behaviour, including respect orders, youth injunctions and housing injunctions; Part 2 to offensive weapons; Part 3 to retail crime; Part 4 to criminal exploitation of children and others; Part 5 to sexual offences and offenders; Part 6 to stalking.; Part 7 to other provisions for the protection of persons; Part 8 to offences relating to racial and other hostility; Part 9 to prevention of theft and fraud; Part 10 to public order; Part 11 to police powers; Part 12 to proceeds of crime; Part 13 to management of offenders; Part 14 to the Police; Part 15 to terrorism and national security; and Part 16 to abortion.
RIGHT OF WAY
May 7th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureRamblers Association v Cumberland Council and others (2026) EWCA Civ 534 concerns the meaning of “ actually enjoyed by the public for a full period of 20 years” and therefore deemed to have been DEDICATED AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY pursuant to section 31 (1) of the Highways Act 1081. The Court of Appeal reaffirms ( para 40 ) that an intermission in use and an interruption of use are two quite different concepts, and ( para 50 ) that an intermission of use is relevant to the overall question of fact, and it is important to survey the extent and nature of the use over the whole of the relevant 20 year period. The reason for any intermission of use is likely to br relevant information : para 54. At para 64 the Court approved a summary of the law in 8 crisp propositions.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
May 6th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationR ( GVH ) v Leicester Care Board & Leicester Council ( 2026 ) EWHC 1016 ( Admin ) holds that a COMPLAINTS PROCESS, governed by the Local Authority Social Services & NHS Services Complaints ( England ) Regulations 2009, may be an ALTERNATIVE REMEDY to Judicial Review, leading to a ( discretionary ) refusal of permission to apply for Judicial review. The PROCESS could offer a more effective redress than a quashing order.
PROCURED CONTRACTS
May 5th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn PARKINGEYE LTD v VELINDRE UNIVERSITY NHS TRUST ( 2026 ) EWHC 1019 ( TCC ), concerned with applications by a contracting authority to lift an AUTOMATIC SUSPENSION, the Court rules that Section 102 of the PROCUREMENT ACT 2023 is “ substantively and not merely formally different, in both its method and its effect “ from the former test, in PCR 2015 Regulation 96(2). The public interest will “ generally” tend in favour of keeping the suspension in place.
APPARENT BIAS/PREDETERMINATION
May 5th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsIn R ( University of Sussex ) v Office for Students (2026) EWHC 984 ( Admin ), the Dr Kathleen Scott case, Lieven J found that the OFS decision to sanction the University, for alleged breaches of its conditions of registration, was unlawful. This was on a number of judicial review grounds. They included apparent bias and/or predetermination. The broad conduct of the OFS demonstrated predetermination. There was compelling evidence that the OFS had approached its Investigation prompted by protests against Dr Stock with a CLOSED MIND. Senior Officials had set out to establish a breach. From the outset, the OFS adopted a strategy aimed at creatin a “ test case “ to send a strong single to the HE sector. This strategy depended on the University being found in breach, heavily fined, and publicly criticised.
GENERAL POWERS
May 1st, 2026 by James Goudie KC in GeneralPart 1 of the 172 Section CRIME & POLICING ACT 2026, with 18 Schedules, relates to ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, Part 4 to CHILD CRIMINAL EXPLOITATION and Part 9 to PUBLIC ORDER.