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 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 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.
