header-logo header-logo

Law digests: 24 October 2025

24 October 2025
Issue: 8136 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Company

Pagden and others v Ridgley [2025] EWHC 2674 (Ch)

The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal against a judge’s order which had rejected the appellants’ challenge to the respondent’s remuneration and expenses as administrator of Orthios Eco Parks (Anglesey) Ltd and Orthios Power (Anglesey) Ltd. The court held that r 18.34 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 did not provide jurisdiction to challenge an administrator’s remuneration paid from the proceeds of realising assets subject to a fixed charge, as such assets do not form part of the ‘company’s pot’ available for distribution to general creditors. Part 18 of the 2016 Rules, including r 18.34, applies only to remuneration and expenses relating to the administration of the company’s assets as statutorily enlarged (including assets subject to floating charges), not to assets subject to fixed charges which remain outside the insolvency process.


Employment

Simpson v Unite the Union [2025] EAT 149

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed Mr Simpson’s appeal against the further decision of the certification officer, which decided that

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll