ROBERTS v SEVERN TRENT WATER and other WATER COMPANIES, with OFWAT as Intervener, ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 222 considers COLLECTIVE PROCEEDINGS/a CLASS REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM  , in the context of pollution ( by water &  sewerage undertakings as statutory monopoly suppliers allegedly abusing a dominant position). A CCOLLECTIVE PROCEEDINGS ORDER may be made under Section 47B(4) of the Competition Act 1998. The majority hold that the CLAIM IS BARRED. This is because it claimed remedies that were available only “ by virtue of “ the acts complained of constituting alleged contravention of a regulatory regime ( under the Water Industry Act 1991).

DPP v COSKUN ( 2026 ) EWHC 427 ( Admin ) holds that whether conduct (1) amounted to DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR and (2) was “ likely” to cause a person HARASSMENT. ALARM or DISTRESS are SEPARATE AND DISTINCT QUESTIONS. Each is a question of fact, to be judged objectively. Moreover, a conviction may represent a necessary and proportionate interference with ECHR Article 10 freedom of expression rights, which extend beyond written or spoken words to “expressive acts”.

The SECURITY DUTY in the 7^th Data Protection Principle in DPA 1998 requires a DATA CONTROLLER to GUARD AGAINST THE RISK that data which relates to individuals who could be identified by the data controller would be subject to unauthorised/unlawful processing by a third party who could not identify those individuals. So held in INFORMATION COMMISSSIONER v DSG RETAIL LTD ( “)”^ ) EWCA Civ 140.