header-logo header-logo

25 September 2026
Issue: 8178 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 25 September 2026

Costs

R (Sean Fitzgerald) v The Parole Board for England and Wales [2026] EWCA Civ 1199

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant’s (Mr Fitzgerald) appeal against a High Court costs order. Mr Fitzgerald had successfully claimed judicial review against the Parole Board for unlawful delay in holding a hearing to decide his release after serving his minimum term. The judge had found a ten-month breach of Art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded £10,000 damages, but made no order for costs. The Court of Appeal held that the practice described in Davies v Birmingham Deputy Coroner and applied in R (Gourlay) v Parole Board, which protects courts and tribunals from adverse costs orders when acting judicially and not actively participating, did not apply to this case. The court had found, among other things, that the delay was administrative rather than judicial, caused by the Parole Board’s failure to manage the case actively and its shortage of panel members. The claim included both a challenge

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll