In SHAUN THOMPSON v METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER (2026) EWHC 915 ( Admin ) a Divisional Court reaffirms that a measure, such as a Policy, must have the “ quality of law “, that is be (1) accessible to the persons concerned, (2) foreseeable as to its consequences, and (3) compatible with the RULE OF LAW. As to foreseeability, the measure MUST NOT CONFER A DISCRETION SO BROAD that its scope is in practice dependent on the will of those who apply it, rather than on the law itself.. It must have sufficient clarity and foreseeability so as NOT to allow ARBITRARINESS, that is decision-making by a public authority on the basis of whim, caprice, malice or predilection. A challenge to the foreseeability of a measure, or its alleged arbitrariness, does NOT, however, a challenge to the PROPORTIONALITY of that measure or its application to a particular case.

In ZHB v CARDIFF COUNCIL (2026) EWHC 913 ( Admin ) Coppel J (1) identifies at paras 17-40 the legal principles to be derived from relevant Strasbourg case law on age assessment processes and (2) holds that the Council was not under an obligation to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when conducting an assessment.

In HARRON v ROTHERHAM MBC ( 2026 ) UKUT 48 ( AAC ) Judge Stout rules that is for the Information Commissioner to decide whether a response to a substituted decision is compliant with FoIA. The FTT is NOT empowered to compel compliance with substituted decision notices. The law of contempt does NOT create any secondary cause of action or open up any new substantive jurisdiction.

Chamberlain J, the Judge in charge of the Administrative Court, has issued an important Administrative Court PRACTICE STATEMENT, in relation to OPPOSED APPLICATIONS FOR  EXTENDING TIME. It sets out the PROCEDURE that will apply to Administrative Court work in London, except in Planning Court cases and in specified circumstances. The Statement indicates that, following feedback, the new procedure may be extended to Administrative Court centres outside London and to Planning Court claims.

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.

The 7^th edition of JUDICIAL REMEDIES IN PUBLIC LAW by Lord Justice Lewis has been published.

In FALLAH v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (2026) UKFTT 190 (GRC) the FTT discusses the scope of its power under Section 166(2) of the DATA PROTECTION ACT 2018. The FTT emphasizes that this power is narrow, and expressly limited to the supervision of PROCEDURAL matters.

It does NOT provide power to consider or review the SUBSTANCE of any decision made by the INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. The forum for challenging whether the steps taken to investigate the complaint were appropriate or whether relevant evidence was considered is JUDICIAL REVIEW in the High Court.

R  ( CHO ) v GOVERNORS OF LONSDALE SCHOOL ( 2026 ) EWHC 166 ( Admin ) reiterates, at paras 93-96 that “The mere fact that a judicial review concerns past conduct does not automatically mean that the claim has become academic.”