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.

In Case C-422/24, SWEDISH AUTHORITY FOR PRIVACY PROTECTION v A SWEDISH PUBLIC TRANSPORT COMPANY the CJEU considers GDPR implications when operators of PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES equip their ticket inspectors with body cameras used to film passengers who do not have a valid ticket when TICKET INSPECTIONS are carried out.

A system is NOT Wednesbury unreasonable merely because its design or operation is capable of improvement. So says the Court of Appeal at para 67 in R ( Refugee and Migrant Forum ) v SSHD ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 1843.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the CONSTITUTION has, on 20 November 2025, published a Report, “ The rule of law: holding the line against tyranny and anarchy “, including, at paras 93-99, on Judicial Review.

In ROMAL CAPITAL v Peel L&P ( Ports ) Ltd (2025) EWHC 3016 ( Ch ), on damages for breach of contract, in which C alleged that, but for the breaches by D of its obligations in an agreement for lease, C would have had a very good chance of obtaining a valuable planning permission for a large redevelopment scheme at Liverpool Docks, see on ESTOPPEL para 218, on what would have happened in a COUNTERFACTUAL WORLD para 314, on LOSS OF A CHANCE paras 422-426, and on UNCERTAINTIES IN EVALUATION  paras 579-584.

In R ( Coventry City Council ) v SSHD (2025) EWHC 2929 ( Admin ) the Council’s challenge on 6 grounds failed with respect to SSHD’s actions pursuant to the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 in accommodation, an Ibis Hotel, in the Council’s area.

An interim injunction having been imposed in a claim for breach of the statutory tort of harassment does not have the effect that the Prohibition of Cross-Examination in Person Regulations, S.I. 2022/568, applies in respect of a subsequent trial : so held by Steyn J in OPTOSAFE LTD v ROBERTSON (2025) EWHC 2733 (KB).

When money is paid pursuant to an Order that is set aside, the payer is entitled to RESTITUTION of that amount, with INTEREST “ in suitable cases”.

In EDGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS V OFCOM (2025) EWHC 2758 (KB) Linden J reaffirms that most statutory duties in the public context are owed to the public at large.. In cases of legislation establishing an administrative system to promote social welfare, “ exceptionally clear statutory language “ is necessary to create any right to damages for breach of statutory duty.