header-logo header-logo

26 September 2025
Issue: 8132 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 26 September 2025

Compensation

Stephenson (by his Deputy and litigation friend, Victoria Treacy) v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2025] EWCA Civ 1160

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant’s, Dominic Stephenson’s, appeal concerning the interpretation and application of para 42(b) of the 2001 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The court held that Dominic Stephenson’s need for accommodation adaptations and related costs for the Court of Protection were attributable to his pre-existing conditions rather than the manslaughter of his mother. The court ruled that such costs were not compensable under ‘other resultant losses’ in para 42(b), as they did not result from the loss of parental services caused by the crime. Additionally, the interpretation that these losses must directly result from the loss of parental services was upheld without any error of law in the previous tribunals’ judgments.


Costs

Reeves v Frain (aka Simon Kevin Reeves aka Bill Reeves) and another [2025] EWHC 2311 (KB)

The King’s Bench Division ruled on a costs appeal concerning the enforceability of two damages-based agreements

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