header-logo header-logo

11 July 2025
Issue: 8124 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 11 July 2025

Administrative law

R (on the application of Matthew Campbell) v HM Attorney General for England and Wales [2025] EWHC 1653 (Admin)

The Administrative Court ruled on whether the Attorney General’s decision to refuse consent under s 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 for judicial review proceedings was justiciable. The court determined that the Attorney General's function, falling within public interest functions akin to gatekeeping legal proceedings, is immune from review under established legal precedents. Even if justiciable, the grounds advanced by the claimant were deemed insufficient to challenge the decision.


Constitutional law

R (on the application of Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade [2025] EWHC 1615 (Admin)

The Administrative Court refused the claimant, a human rights organisation, permission to bring a judicial review claim of the decision of the secretary of state to exclude components for F-35 combat aircraft from the suspension of military exports to Israel (the ‘F-35 carve out’) from the export of items that might be used in carrying out or facilitating Israeli military

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll