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.”

In R ( LUTON LANDLORDS AND LETTING AGENTS ) v LUTON BOROUGH COUNCIL ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 35 the Court of Appeal, at para 58, reiterates that the DUTY ON A CLAIMANT to DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS requires  that the Claimant provides a “ candid, accurate and sufficiently detailed description of facts material to the claim for judicial review.”

In LILLYSTONE v BRADGATE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP (2025) EWHC 3341 (KB) the Court reiterates that liability relates to dangers due to the state of the premises, rather than indulging in an activity that has inherent dangers and perfectly obvious risks.

In EVANS v BARCLAYS BANK (2025) UKSC 48 the Supreme Court considers the procedure for collective proceedings ( a form of class action ) in cases where BREACH OF COMPETITION LAW is alleged, and which allows damages to be awarded for the AGGREGATE LOSS of the class as a whole, without the need to show what loss each individual member of the class has suffered.