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.

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.