johndoe@gmail.com
FacebookAre you sure you want to reset the form?
Your mail has been sent successfully
Are you sure you want to remove the alert?
Your session is about to expire! You will be logged out in
Do you wish to stay logged in?
The August issue of the Bloomsbury Cyber Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
The latest update to A Practical Guide to UK Accounting and Auditing Standards is now live for subscribers. All chapters have been fully updated to reflect the periodic review amendments. Updates include new sections relating to the on-balance sheet lease accounting provisions in FRS 102 (September 2024) in Chapter 13, and updates to the FRC Ethical Standard issued in January 2024 in Chapter 28. A summary of changes can be found here.
The latest update to the Bloomsbury Professional Tax Guide is now live for subscribers. The commentary has been bought up-to-date with Finance Act 2025, recent changes to HMRC guidance and relevant case decisions. Examples have also been updated throughout.
The August issue of the Bloomsbury IP/IT Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
In its judgment in Moderna Inc v Pfizer Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1032, the England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld a decision of Mr Justice Meade finding that Moderna’s patent relating to mRNA was valid and infringed. In its judgment, the Court provided guidance on the identification of the skilled person and the role of expert witnesses.
In the High Court, Deputy High Court Judge David Stone struck out most of a claim concerning alleged infringement of copyright in typefaces but declined to grant summary judgment on one point (Lish v The Northern Block Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 2172 (Ch)).
His Honour Justice Hacon found a patent for a system for creating an immersive experience which combines driving a real go-kart with the features of a video game invalid for lack of inventive step and added matter in his judgment in Battlekart Europe SA v Chaos Karts 1 Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1936 (IPEC).
Lant v Plastic Head Music Distribution Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 1954 (IPEC), a judgment of Recorder Amanda Michaels, concerned the subsistence and ownership of the copyright in six artworks and two photographs associated with the hard rock band Venom.
The Scottish Court of Session has upheld a decision that royalties should continue to be paid under a licence agreement after the relevant patents had expired (Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited v Lindal Dispenser GmbH [2025] CSIH 20 CA97/23).
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has clarified when it will be appropriate to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its order in expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert Klein GmbH v Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd UPC_CoA_380/2025.
The Hamburg local division of the UPC has granted a preliminary injunction to Dyson in its dispute with Dreame over a patent for hair stylers (Dyson Technology Limited v Dreame International (Hong Kong) Limited et al UPC_CFI_387/2025). The injunction covers certain Dreame products and applies to the UPC territory and Spain, which is not a UPC member.
Finally, the UPC Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) is now accepting applications to be placed on the list of mediators, arbitrators and experts.
The August issue of the Bloomsbury Company and Commercial Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
The latest update to Norfolk and Montagu on the Taxation of Interest and Debt Finance is now live for subscribers. A summary of the updated material can be found here. It includes a summary of the First Tier Tribunal decision in Gary Quillan v Commissioners for HMRC ([2025] UKFTT 421 (TC)); and a note about the July 2025 draft legislation providing for a new regime for the taxation of ‘carried interest’ was published which ‘treats’ a carried-interest holder as carrying on a trade for income tax purposes.
Issue 90 of Termination of Employment is now available for subscribers.
The July-August 2025 issue of Pensions Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
The September issue of Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
YM v ML (Article 13(b): Behaviour: Mental Health: Immigration) [2025] EWHC 2219 (Fam) (26 August 2025), Nicholas Allen KC (as a High Court judge) – Order for return of child (aged two) to Australia, following mother’s abduction. Her Hague Convention, Art 13(b) defence (grave risk that a child’s return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm etc) was not made out.
C v S [2025] EWFC 254 (16 July 2025), Dexter Dias J (at final hearing) – Long-running Children Act 1989, Pt 2 proceedings where exceptionally the father (F) was awarded a costs order of 50% of his claimed costs and based on the extent of the unreasonableness of M's overall conduct.
Smith v The Lord Chancellor & Anor [2025] EWFC 241, [2025] WLR(D) 427 (1 August 2025), Sir Andrew McFarlane P – Litigant in person’s claim for a non-party costs order (NCPO) against the Lord Chancellor refused: the court has no power to make such an order.
Clarke v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB) (22 August 2025), Steyn J – The claimant’s witness appears to have calculated that it is better for him to risk being in contempt than it is for him to give the evidence on oath. The court was ‘entitled to draw the conclusion that key elements of that statement are false (see [67])’ said the judge.
AB v B & Anor [2025] EWHC 1891 (Fam) (4 July 2025), Francis J – In Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 proceedings, application for a non-party disclosure order under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 31.17 (in parallel terms to Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), r 21.2) confidentiality restraints did not prevent the court making a non-party production order by the company half of which was owned by the deceased.
PMC (a child by his mother FLR) v Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 1126, [2025] WLR(D) 449 (28 August 2025) – Child’s appeal allowed from order of Nicklin J refusing anonymity. Anonymity ordered. Court of Appeal guidance on up-to-date procedure for an anonymity application.
The breadth of the set aside jurisdiction of family courts
In L v L [2006] EWHC 956 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 26 (2 May 2006), Munby J described as a ‘procedural quagmire’ the ability of family courts to review or set aside their orders. Mostly, he had in mind financial relief orders. Of Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984), s 31F(6) Lady Hale in Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2016] AC 871, [2015] 2 FLR 1367 (14 October 2015) echoed Munby J. She continued her judgment by considering the practical effects of MFPA 1984, s 31F(6) in family proceedings. Alongside Sharland a different function of MFPA 1984, s 31F(6) was being considered by the Court of Appeal in Re E (Children: Reopening Findings of Fact) [2019] EWCA Civ 1447, [2019] 1 WLR 6765, [2020] 1 FLR 162 (14 August 2019) and how it could be used for courts to review earlier decisions in the light of new evidence.
The common law background to MFPA 1984, s 31F(6) and an understanding of the court’s set aside jurisdiction for all civil proceedings is derived from Matrimonial Causes Rules 1947 (MCR 1947), r 36 (and earlier common law and rules). That rule was explained by Peek v Peek [1948] P 46, [1947] 2 All ER 578 (PDA Div Ct: Lord Merriman P and Wallington J); and, as explained, the terminology of MCR 1947, r 36 is preserved today over 75 years later.
This article looks at the history of the jurisdiction in family proceedings and asks whether recent limited amendments to FPR 2010 have taken the law – procedurally – seriously backwards and the rule makers use of old terminology obscures what MFPA 1984, s 31F(6) is trying to do.
Vol 30, No 3 of Communications Law is now available for subscribers.
The latest update to the Corporation Tax Annual is now live for subscribers. This updates fully reflects the provisions of Finance Act 2025 and related HMRC guidance, as well as recent Tribunal decisions. A summary of changes can be found here.
Issue 84 of International Succession Laws is now live for subscribers. This contains a general update of the following chapters - A5: Austria, B4: Bermuda, F3: France, and I1: India.
Issue 102 of Children Law and Practice is now available for subscribers.
This update contains the most significant revision to the text since 2014, when the work was substantially revised and updated to take into account the changes brought about by the creation of the new Family Court.
The original structure of the work, which was published on the day that the Children Act 1989 came into force, followed the structure of the Act. An initial Division covering parental responsibility was followed by Divisions on the orders available in private and public law proceedings, and local authority responsibility. Over the years, as the law has developed, the original Divisions have expanded and been modified, and others have been added. However the broad structure of the work has remained consistent.
The advantage of this structure was that the reader knew at a glance where to look for information about care orders, adoption or appeals. However there were a number of topics which appeared in two or more Divisions, leading to duplication and the need for frequent cross-referencing. The topic of jurisdiction, for example (which has expanded beyond all recognition since 1991) appeared in Divisions B (private law); C (public law) and G (child abduction).
In order to draw out these crossover topics and present them in a more accessible way, Update 102 introduces a new Division (AA) entitled ‘General Principles and Procedure’. This Division pulls together the major crossover topics (jurisdiction, the welfare principle, evidence and confidentiality and disclosure) into one unified section, alongside an explanation of the relationship between the Family Court and the High Court and an overview of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The authors hope that this will reduce the need to follow cross-references between the different Divisions, and make it easier for readers to go straight to the text they need. The structure of the remaining Divisions remains unchanged, but duplicated material has been removed, leading to a slight reduction in the length of the narrative overall. The material that was in Division H has been subsumed into other divisions, so that division no longer exists.
The August issue of Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
T v H [2025] EWHC 1875 (Fam) (9 July 2025), Cusworth J – Children’s habitual residence held to be England and Wales, not Poland as the mother (M) sought to establish. Hague Convention, Art 7(1)(b) sets out four principles (listed) which must be established. M had failed to do so, said the judge.
Re G (A Child: Scope of Fact-Finding) [2025] EWCA Civ 1044 (31 July 2025) – Case management appeal is care proceedings: a small child was born to a mother (M) whose previous child had died when that child was, six years earlier, in the care of M (herself then a child). The judge refused an application to fact-find that death. The Court of Appeal agreed by a majority.
The New Lottery Company Ltd v The Gambling Commission [2025] EWHC 1710 (TCC), [2025] WLR(D) 374 (7 July 2025), Sir Vivian Ramsey as a High Court judge – Where an interested party (IP) was not made a respondent to an application the court still had wide powers to order that an IP be permitted to participate in particular applications etc and where apt that IP provide specific disclosure.
Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 (2 July 2025) – Adjustment of assets between parties depended on whether they had been ‘matrimonialised’. In this case they had not: H kept ‘his’ 75%. Balance of 25% should be divided equally.
Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055 (31 July 2025) – Short childless marriage, pre-nuptial agreement (PNA). Non-disclosure in PNA by W of around 75% of her substantial assets (around £66 million). PNA vitiated and the case sent back to another High Court judge.
Re HMP [2025] EWCA Civ 824, [2025] WLR(D) 351 (1 July 2025) – The open justice principle had two main purposes, namely (i) to enable public scrutiny of the way in which the courts decided cases; and (ii) to enable public understanding of the justice system. The limits of the open justice principle must be understood.
Culligan v Culligan (No3) (Terms of Order) [2025] EWFC 186 (3 July 2025), MacDonald J – ‘[60] In default of the submission of an agreed draft order within seven days of the date of this judgment, the court will draft the terms of the order and a sealed copy will be sent to the parties.’
GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European Topsoho SARL [2025] EWCA Civ 933, [2025] WLR(D) 403 (24 July 2025) – Inadequacy of reasons given by a judge could be a ground for appeal (see [21]). The court defined what the judge should have done (para [32]).
Expert evidence in family proceedings
A couple of recent cases have recalled the importance of familiarity with opinion – now called ‘expert’ – evidence in family, as in any civil, proceedings. A Local Authority v X (Attendance of Experts) [2025] EWFC 137, [2025] WLR(D) 300 (3 June 2025), MacDonald J reminded parties and their advisers of what are the special qualities involved in involving the evidence of expert witnesses in a case, and of whatever type of case is involved.
The August edition of Irish Property Law Update is now available for subscribers of Irish Property Law. This month, Professor J.C.W Wylie provides an update on the following:
To purchase a subscription or to request a free trial, email bpireland@bloomsbury.com
The latest update to our VAT Annual is now live for subscribers. Commentary takes account of the provisions of FInance Act 2025 as well as such as TOMS Upper Tribunal decision in Sonder Europe Limited v HMRC.
The May-June 2025 issue of Pensions Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
The latest update to our Stamp Taxes Annual is now live for subscribers. The commentary has been updated in line with Finance Act 2025, including the changes to multiple dwellings relief for SDLT purposes; and recent case decisions such as Yisroel Dreyfus v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 244 (TC). A full summary of updates can be found here.
The July issue of the Bloomsbury IP/IT Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision finding a patent and two supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for dapagliflozin to be invalid for lack of inventive step and/or insufficiency (Generics (UK) Ltd & Ors v AstraZeneca AB [2025] EWCA Civ 903).
In Accord Healthcare Ltd & Ors v Regents of the University of California & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 936, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a finding that a patent claiming enzalutamide as a treatment for prostate cancer was valid.
The Court of Appeal has published two judgments in appeals brought by easyGroup. easyGroup Ltd v easyfundraising Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1000 concerned a first instance judgment dismissing easyGroup’s claims of trade mark infringement, passing off, trade mark invalidity and revocation and partly upholding the defendants’ counterclaims. easyGroup Ltd v Easy Live (Services) Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 946 concerned a judgment that dismissed claims that EASY LIVE AUCTION and other marks infringed easyGroup’s trade marks and which upheld the validity of the defendants’ trade mark. The Court of Appeal upheld some aspects of the appeals and rejected others.
In MediaTek, Inc & Ors v Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 1689 (Pat), Mr Justice Leech rejected a second attempt by Huawei to stay proceedings in its standard essential patent (SEP) dispute with MediaTek.
There have been three decisions in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court this month.
Recorder Amanda Michaels rejected a trade mark infringement and passing off claim relating to the trade mark TRANSFERWISE in WISE Payments Ltd v With Wise Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1722 (IPEC).
Martin & Ors v Bodegas San Huberto SA & Ors [2025] EWHC 1827 (IPEC) concerned a claim for copyright infringement and passing off. It was brought by artist Shantell Martin against an Argentinian winery Bodegas San Huberto and related parties.
In Courtnay-Smith & Anor v The Notting Hill Shopping Bag Company Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1793 (IPEC), Master Kaye sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge found a logo trade mark to be invalid and rejected a passing off claim due to lack of goodwill. He found that copyright did subsist in the logo but there was no infringement.
The Mannheim local division of the Unified Patent Court granted an injunction covering the UK in Fujifilm Corporation v Kodak GmbH UPC_CFI_365/2023.
Finally, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) launched a consultation on potential measures to address challenges in the UK’s SEP ecosystem and the UK has signed the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.
The latest update to the Making Tax Digital Tracker is now live for subscribers. This content has undergone extensive updates to reflect the announcement that MTD for corporation tax will no longer be going ahead. Further updates have been made to reflect draft legislation published in July 2025.
The latest update to our Inheritance Tax Annual is now live for subscribers. This takes account of the provisions of Finance Act 2025, in particular, the change to a residence-based (from a domicile-based) IHT regime from 6 April 2025. A full list of the updates can be found here.
The July issue of Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
F v M [2025] EWHC 1279 (Fam), [2025] 4 WLR 72, [2025] WLR(D) (22 May 2025), Hayden J – F’s appeal against a finding of ‘rape’ allowed; but technical criminal type findings not necessary in a case involving a spectrum of domestic abuse.
Re A (A Child) (Appeal: Finding of Rape) [2025] EWHC 1500 (Fam) (17 June 2025), Henke J – F’s appeal allowed where district judge had found him guilty of rape in Children Act 1989, Pt 2 family proceedings. Returned for hearing before another judge. M had refused to comply with a bodily samples test.
Re Q (A child) (Skull Fracture: Proportionality) [2025] EWFC 209 (11 June 2025), Lieven J – Care order, child with foster parents with level of contact recommended by the judge. Q was in squalid accommodation with her parents. Threshold agreed by parents.
The London Borough of Barnet v DL & ors [2025] EWFC 168 (18 June 2025), MacDonald J – Care and placement order for a child under three where proceedings had continued for over one year. Private placement with child’s extended family not acceptable to the court.
Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision: s 423 Insolvency Act 1986) [2025] EWHC 1460 (Fam) (4 June 2025), Harrison J –F had substantial assets though he said he had place substantial wealth in trust for his father (M’s section 423 application was therefore redundant). £6,600 pm periodical payments, housing fund approaching £1,000,000, school fees order etc.
A Local Authority v X (Attendance of Experts) [2025] EWFC 137, [2025] WLR(D) 300 (3 June 2025), MacDonald J –Attendance of six single joint experts – in that case – ‘necessary in the interests of justice for the purposes of FPR 2010, r 25.9(2) (see [67]) and it is not intended to ‘set any precedent’ (see [68]).
M v B [2025] EWFC 182 (25 June 2025), Sir Jonathan Cohen – Circuit judge had listed cross-applications: (1) H’s financial order set aside application, as a Thwaite (Thwaite v Thwaite [1982] Fam 1, CA) application (ie the financial order was still executory) and (2) W’s application to ‘strike out’. Sir Jonathan said both must be fully heard before him.
TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam) (25 June 2025), Justin Warshaw KC as a High Court judge – 43% of parties assets to W giving her ‘free funds’ of around £9,700,000 in full settlement of her claims; no conduct within meaning of Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25(2)(g) found (and W’s costs reduced accordingly); but H’s litigation conduct penalised in costs.
One Savings Bank plc v Waller-Edwards [2025] UKSC 2025, [2025] 2 WLR 1263, [2025] WLR (D) 303 (4 June 2025) – Where joint cohabitant borrowers applied for a loan the courts imposed a ‘bright line’ test: if it appears that one party was undertaking to provide a guarantee of the other’s debts in return for nothing (ie as a surety), the lender would be regarded as having been put on inquiry of the possibility of undue influence and so was required to implement the established ‘protocol’ (per Lord Nicholls in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44, [2001] 3 WLR 1021, [2001] 2 FLR 1364 at [79]).
The implied undertaking: ‘use’ of court material in financial relief cases
What is the implied – or collateral – undertaking; and to what extent does it apply in family proceedings? Since the end of 2023, the pilot schemes for family proceedings have extended to financial relief on marriage and civil partnership breakdown (see eg discussion in Vince v Vince (Re Transparency) [2024] EWFC 406, [2025] WLR(D) 90 (20 December 2024), Cusworth J.
The guidance of Sir Andrew in a non-judicial role, and as administrator in relation to the emerging financial relief pilot scheme, is set out in The transparency reporting pilot for financial remedy proceedings: Guidance from the President of the Family division (11 December 2023) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Reporting.PilotScheme.Final_.Dec2023.pdf. This guidance includes an arresting comment in a short section on ‘Documents’ which ends with:
‘27 If a document is referred to during a hearing, that does not entitle the reporter to see the document without permission of the court. The normal rule in civil proceedings ([Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998)] r 31.22) does not apply to financial remedy cases.’
By CPR 1998, r 31.22, the President refers to ‘use’ of disclosed documents collateral to the case in court; but what does he mean in this context? This article seeks to answer that question and to look at the genesis of the collateral undertaking generally and specifically in financial relief cases.
The latest update to our Trusts and Estates Annual is now live for subscribers. A summary of the updated content, including the impact of the move to a residence-based IHT system introduced by Finance Act 2025, can be found here.
The July issue of Bloomsbury Cyber Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
The latest update to Tax Planning for Farm and Land Diversification is now live for subscribers. This update includes Autumn Budget 2024 impact of reduced APR and BPR and the “farmers’ revolt” (1.21), the slashing of IHT relief (2.19) and Furnished Holiday Accommodation and the case of Tanner at (6.21). A full list of updated material can be found here.
The July issue of Bloomsbury Company and Commercial Law Briefing is now available for subscribers.
Issue 44 of Issue 44 of Law of Limitation Now Available
Law of Limitation is now available for subscribers.
Family Court Reports [2025] Vol 2 Pt 7 is now available for subscribers.
The following cases have been reported in 2 FCR 7:
GO v YA [2024] EWFC 411; 2 FCR 633
K & D (Children: Sexual Abuse Findings) [2025] EWCA Civ 263; 2 FCR 656
KL v BA (Parental responsibility) (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam); 2 FCR 677
SM v BA (Legal Services Payment Order) [2025] EWFC 7; 2 FCR 700
TW, R (On the Application Of) v Essex County Council [2025] EWCA Civ 4; 2 FCR 725
The latest update to our Income Tax Annual is now live for subscribers. This takes account of the provisions of Finance Act 2025, including the chapter on non-residents which is substantially updated to reflect the fact that from 6 April 2025, the current remittance basis of taxation was abolished for UK resident non-domiciled individuals.
July’s issue of 5 from 5 Essex Court Employment Law Bulletin is now available for subscribers.
In July’s issue:
Review of Parental Leave Underway
Whistleblowing – Are external consultants liable for detriment?
Whither the ACAS EC certificate
The latest update to Research and Development Tax Reliefs is now live for subscribers. This update includes the latest extensive Finance Act 2025 changes as well as technical case law analysis and updates and linked examples and calculations. Topics covered in this update include guidance upon the new ‘merged’ scheme replacing the historic R&D ‘legacy’ schemes operative from 2000 – 2024, updates on case law decisions made during the past two years, providing useful insight into the current approach of the Courts to contentious areas of RD legislation and regulations and updated commentary on the contribution and context of UK BERD, and global R&D expenditure trends.
The latest set of Tax Case Summaries are now live for subscribers. This includes the decision in Moffat v Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 663 (TC) where a subsidiary’s activities included non-trading activities to a substantial extent, so the parent company was not the holding company of a trading group. Also included is Moss v Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 595 (TC) where the taxpayer was wholly taxable on rental income from letting a jointly owned property with her former husband.
The latest update to Partnership Taxation is now live for subscribers. This update contains clarification of the commentary and the alteration of references to changes proposed by the 2024 Budget Statement to changes applied by FA 2025.
The latest Busy Practitioner is now live for subscribers. This features commentary on the latest HMRC Agent Update, and some guidance on the IHT treatment of excluded property as they apply under the residence-based IHT regime.
The July edition of the Irish Company and Commercial Law Update is now live on Bloomsbury Professional Online. In this issue, Dr Thomas Courtney summarises one of the most significant decisions of the High Court on the restriction of directors – Re Downtul Limited; O’Connell v Butler & Butler [2025] IEHC 358 (Cahill J). Dr Courtney also summarises the key points contained in the European Union (Gender Balance on Boards of Certain Companies) Regulations 2025 (SI No 215 of 2025) which encourage relevant companies to strive to achieve a gender balance on their boards of directors. We cover the ubiquitous Rule in Battle is back again before the courts in Criminal Assets Bureau – Nida Investments Limited [2025] IECA 132 where a company director was not permitted to appeal against a decision of the High Court making an interlocutory freezing order and an order appointing a receiver under ss 3 and 7 respectively of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996; and also in Jones v Obisesan [2025] IEHC 338 (Simons J) when leave was refused to allow a company director represent the company in a judicial review of a Circuit Court decision. Finally, the issue covers the decision in Sunward Holdings Limited v Teqnion AB [2025] IEHC 296 (Twomey J) where the High Court refused to determine an issue of interpretation concerning a shareholders’ agreement where the parties had agreed to ADR and that an expert should determine the issue first, describing the application brought before the expert had even considered the issue to be wasteful and premature.
The July edition of Irish Civil Litigation Update is now available for subscribers of Irish Civil Litigation. This month sees Hugh Good cover the case of Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v O’Reilly. Here, the court considered considered a case stated from the High Court, wherein Simons J. queried: ‘in circumstances where there has been an assignment of interest in a registered charge and the underlying debt subsequent to the making of an order for possession by the Circuit Court, but prior to the hearing of an appeal to the High Court, is it appropriate to substitute the transferee/assignee as plaintiff in lieu of the original plaintiff. Alternatively, should the transferee/assignee be joined to the appeal proceedings as an additional party.’ This decision has provided some much-needed clarity for parties, financial institutions in particular, concerning the approach to be taken in litigation where the underlying loan and securities have been transferred to another, a relatively common occurrence in litigation of this nature.
Key Words:
[2025] IECA 140 (Costello P., 8 July 2025)
Appeals – Order 17, rule 4 Rules of the Superior Courts – Substitution of Plaintiff – Transmission/Assignment of Interest
The July edition of Irish Wills and Probate Update is now live for subscribers of Irish Wills and Probate and is entitled Part 2: In the Matter of the Estate of Josephine Maguire Deceased.
Stephen Spierin BL writes that this was an application in the High Court non-contentious probate list by the executor named in the deceased’s last will, to make directions on whether to admit the deceased’s last will to probate. While the matter was brief and the court gave a decision ex tempore, there is an important principle to be taken from this decision in relation to testamentary capacity.
The July issue of Intellectual Property/ IT Update is now live for subscribers of the IP/IT Service. This month, the team at William Fry look at some recent DPC cases in the context of public service privacy compliance. Recent enforcement actions against the Department of Social Protection (DSP), the City of Dublin Education and Training Board (CDETB), and other public authorities resulted in findings of recurring legal deficiencies in data governance. These include the absence of a lawful basis for processing, inadequate transparency, failure to conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs), and insufficient technical and organisational security measures. The DPC’s decisions underpin the heightened legal sensitivity surrounding biometric data under Article 9 GDPR and raise broader questions about the readiness of some bodies to deploy advanced data processing technologies in a manner that complies with EU data protection law.
The July edition of Irish Employment Law Update is now available for subscribers of Irish Employment Law. In this issue, Paul Kilraine BL provides a case analysis of Tom Ronan v Commissioner for An Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General.
The case concerned the plaintiff who had reached the age of 70, and in accordance with the terms of his employment, he was required to retire from his job as a civilian driver with An Garda Síochána. Some colleagues of his who were also employed as drivers, but who had been employed at different times, and were subject to different contractual terms, were allowed to work past their seventieth birthdays. The plaintiff brought a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission under s 77 of the Employment Act 1998 on 1 August 2023, claiming he had been discriminated against of the grounds of age. Paul provides an excellent case analysis in the July issue.
Key Words:
Mulcahy J − [2025] IEHC 79 − 14 February 2025
Discrimination on the grounds of age; discriminatory dismissal; enforcement of WRC determination while on appeal to the Labour Court; Workplace Relations Act, 2015; Employment Equality Act 1998; McGrath v Athlone Institute of Technology [2011] IEHC 254; Holland v Athlone Institute of Technology [2011] IEHC 414; Mallon v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 20; Power v HSE [2019] IEHC 462; Maha Lingam v HSE [2005] IESC 89; An Bord Bainistíocha Moshlóg v The Labour Court (No. 1) [2023] IEHC 484
The July edition of the Irish Property Law Update is now live for subscribers of the Irish Property Law Service. This month, Professor J.C.W Wylie provides an update on the following:
To purchase a subscription or to request a free trial, email bpireland@bloomsbury.com
The latest update to Planning and Administration of Offshore and Onshore Trusts is now live for subscribers. The June update includes revisions to the following chapters: A4: A Comparison of International Vehicles, B5A: India, B7: Israel, B9: Malaysia, B13A: Spain, E3: Bermuda, and E10: Isle of Man.
The latest update to Personal Tax Planning is now live for subscribers. The book has been updated to incorporate a major reform to the UK system; the repeal of the domicile regime for income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax purposes in 2025/26.
This includes an overview of the foreign income and gains regime that's available to qualifying new residents from 6 April 2025 (Chapter 21), as well as the impact of the new rules on excluded property and so called 'excluded property trusts' (Chapter 11).
The latest update to our Payroll Management Manual is now live for subscribers.
The latest set of Tax Case Summaries are now live for subscribers.
In the June issue of Irish Employment Law Update, Paul Kilraine BL discusses the case of Mark McGillicuddy v Avoca Handweavers Shops Limited. The complainant was dismissed from his role due to restructuring. He argued that he had been unfairly dismissed and appealed the decision to dismiss.
The Fifth Edition of The Law of Compulsory Purchase is now available for subscribers.
The Law of Compulsory Purchase helps the reader to understand the law relating to compulsory purchase and compensation with quick to find clear statements of the law and practice on all points arising in relation to compulsory purchase and compensation. The book includes the detailed analysis necessary to grapple with tricky points encountered in practice, and cross-references to legislation and key case law and guidance.
This Fifth Edition of the book is updated to include:
The Taxation of Companies 2025 is now available on Bloomsbury Professional Online. This flagship title, also known as Feeney, provides the most comprehensive analysis and commentary available on the taxation of companies in Ireland. Written by Tom Maguire, this new edition is updated to Finance Act 2024. An extremely practical book, it features detailed worked examples and extensive references to case law throughout the work. The guidance and advice outlines how to successfully apply new tax reliefs, keeping your client’s tax liabilities as low as possible.
This year’s edition covers key developments such as:
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has issued ‘Amendments to FRS 101 Reduced Disclosure Framework – 2024/25 cycle’, which brings to a close the 2024/25 annual review of FRS 101 ’Reduced Disclosure Framework’. The revised version of FRS 101 Reduced Disclosure Framework is now live for subscribers.
The latest update to Venture Capital Tax Reliefs: The VCT, EIS and SEIS Schemes is now live for subscribers.
Vol. 41 No. 2 of Journal of Professional Negligence is now available for subscribers.
In this issue:
The June issue of Irish Civil Litigation Update is now live for our Irish Civil Litigation subscribers.
Written by Hugh Good BL, he examines the case of Farley v Mapfre Asistencia and Ors. The court considered two applications by foreign defendants seeking to have service of proceedings issued in Ireland set aside on the grounds that the Irish courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The June issue of Irish Criminal Law Update is now available for subscribers of the service.
This month, Laura Byrne BL considers the case of The People (DPP) v AM. The Supreme Court considered in detail the competing interests and rights engaged in determining whether to disclose counselling records to an accused person. The court considered the constitutional rights and principles that apply before going on to consider the ambit of the legislative scheme for counselling records under s 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992. The Supreme Court highlighted the issues with the practical operation of the scheme and emphasises the importance of a complainant providing informed consent to the disclosure of such records, based on sight and understanding of the contents of the said records. The Supreme Court also considered the Willoughby test in relation to the role of new evidence in a matter. The court discussed the criteria for cross examining on a prior inconsistent statement.
