Full Legal Feed

In the matter of an application by Martina Dillon & Ors for Judicial Review; In the matter of an application by Martina Dillon & Ors for Judicial Review (No 2) [2026] UKSC 15 (07 May 2026)

The Supreme Court heard appeals in judicial review proceedings brought by Martina Dillon, John McEvoy, Brigid Hughes and Lynda McManus challenging provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. The judgment explains the Act’s scheme, including the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, limits on investigations, inquests and civil actions, and the immunity mechanism for certain Troubles-related offences.

• Parties included victims of Troubles-related crimes and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice and Coroners Service, and several public-interest bodies intervening.
• The court set out that the 2023 Act replaced police investigations, certain Ombudsman investigations, inquests and civil actions with an inquisitorial review process by the ICRIR.
• The stated policy aims of the Act were reconciliation and peace, and to end what the UK Government considered vexatious claims against veterans.

Dawrani (Judicial discretion - late evidence - sanction) Afghanistan [2026] UKUT 151 (IAC) (09 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal held that, in deciding whether to admit late-served evidence, judges must apply the principles in Maleci and the November 2024 SPT Practice Direction, and that relevant evidence is no longer automatically admitted simply because it exists. It upheld the approach of excluding a belated 586-page appellant bundle where there was no timely application, no adequate explanation for non-compliance, and no clear showing that the material was necessary.

• Parties: Soraya Dawrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department; an Article 8 entry-clearance appeal from Afghanistan-related risk allegations.
• Holding: exclusion of the late 586-page bundle was a proper exercise of judicial discretion; the appeal was heard on the stitched bundle already served.
• Reasoning: the appellant gave no adequate explanation for missing directions, did not seek an extension of time, and did not show why the new material was needed.

Sivarajah v Revenue and Customs (MONEY LAUNDERING REGISTRATION - penalty - Regulation 76 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017) [2026] UKFTT 649 (TC) (29 April 2026)

The First-tier Tribunal (Tax) dismissed Mr Sivarajah’s appeal against an HMRC civil penalty imposed under Regulation 76 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The tribunal accepted HMRC’s evidence and concluded that he had not taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to ensure compliance with the registration requirement, so the penalty was confirmed.

• Appellant: Sellathamby Sivarajah; Respondent: HMRC
• Issue: penalty for trading while unregistered under the Money Laundering Regulations
• Holding: appeal dismissed; penalty confirmed

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for Judicial Review [2025] UKSC 47 (17 December 2025)

The Supreme Court considered a Northern Ireland coroner’s decision to disclose gists of information even though the underlying documents were subject to a ministerial public interest immunity certificate. The appeal asked what standard of judicial review applies where a coroner balances open justice against national security and the NCND policy, and the court considered the issue in part on closed material.

• Appellant: Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; respondents included the Coroner, the deceased’s next of kin, and the Chief Constable of the PSNI.
• Underlying dispute concerned an inquest into the 1994 murder of Liam Paul Thompson and whether gists of sensitive material could be disclosed.
• The Minister certified that non-disclosure was justified to avoid a real risk of serious harm to national security; the Coroner upheld PII but ordered gist disclosure.

Middle East Bank, Munich Branch v Commission (Commercial policy - Protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country - Restrictive measures taken by the United States against Iran - Judgment) French Text [2025] EUECJ T-518/23 (10 December 2025)

The Tribunal reviewed a challenge by Middle East Bank, Munich Branch to two Commission implementing decisions that authorized Clearstream Banking AG to comply with specified U.S. laws in relation to certain securities and funds held for the bank under Regulation 2271/96. The source text describes the dispute, the U.S. Iran sanctions backdrop, and the parties’ claims and procedural posture, but it does not include the Tribunal’s operative holding on the merits in the excerpt provided.

• Applicant: Middle East Bank, Munich Branch; defendant: European Commission; intervenor: Clearstream Banking AG.
• Challenge concerned Commission authorizations under Article 5, second paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (the EU blocking statute).
• U.S. sanctions against Iran are described as including secondary sanctions affecting EU persons’ dealings with SDN-listed entities.

Mathews t/a Coast & Country v Revenue and Customs (MONEY LAUNDERING - Breach of registration requirements in terms of The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 - whether penalty should be imposed) [2025] UKFTT 1124 (TC) (19 September 2025)

The First-tier Tribunal (Tax) dismissed Ashley Mathews t/a Coast & Country’s appeal against an HMRC civil penalty of £13,000 for trading as an estate agency business while unregistered under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The tribunal held that a penalty should be imposed, accepted HMRC’s position that the relevant Government Gateway account should be checked, and found the penalty proportionate.

• Parties: Ashley Mathews t/a Coast & Country v HM Revenue and Customs
• Issue: whether a civil penalty should be imposed for breach of MLR 2017 registration requirements for an estate agency business
• Holding: appeal dismissed; penalty of £13,000 upheld

Lietuvos bankas (Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing - Concept of 'systematic infringement' - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ C-671/23 (19 June 2025)

The Court of Justice interpreted Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 in a reference from the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court concerning fines imposed by Lietuvos bankas on an electronic money institution, M, for eight infringements of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist-financing rules. It held that the Directive does not preclude national legislation or practice allowing a separate fine for each infringement established in the course of one investigation, so long as the sanctions remain effective, proportionate and dissuasive and the principle ne bis in idem is respected.

• Parties: M, an electronic money institution, versus Lietuvos bankas (Bank of Lithuania).
• Issue: whether Article 59 of Directive 2015/849 allows separate fines for each infringement found in a single AML/CTF investigation.
• Holding: EU law does not bar multiple fines where each fine corresponds to a distinct infringement established in that investigation.

Laimz (Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Close associate of a politically exposed person - Definition - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ C-509/23 (19 June 2025)

The Court gave a preliminary ruling on how Directive (EU) 2015/849 defines a "person known to be a close associate" of a politically exposed person, in a dispute between Laimz SIA, a gambling-services provider, and the Latvian Gambling Supervision Inspectorate over a financial penalty for AML/CFT breaches. The judgment also addressed how obliged entities within a group may share information and apply decisions taken by another group member, and it situated gambling providers within the Directive’s enhanced due diligence framework.

• Parties: Laimz SIA v. Latvia’s Gambling Supervision Inspectorate; context was a penalty for alleged AML/terrorist-financing compliance infringements.
• Core issue: interpretation of Article 3(11)(a) of Directive 2015/849 on "close associates" of a PEP, plus Articles 14, 11(d), and 45 on ongoing monitoring, enhanced due diligence, and intra-group information sharing.
• Court focus: the Directive’s prevention-based, risk-based structure; PEP measures are preventive, not criminal, and are not meant to stigmatise PEPs.

Jenec (Approximation of laws - Financial services - Access to a payment account with basic features - money laundering and terrorist financing - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-81/24 (11 June 2026)

The Court interpreted Article 16(4) of Directive 2014/92 together with the anti-money-laundering framework in Directive 2015/849 in a dispute between LH and OTP banka d.d. about opening a payment account with basic features. The judgment focuses on whether a bank may refuse such an account where the consumer is included on the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control list, in light of EU rules on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.

• Parties: LH v OTP banka d.d. (formerly NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR); request from the Slovenian court in Maribor.
• Issue: interpretation of Article 16(4) of Directive 2014/92 and Article 48 of the Charter in a refusal to open a basic payment account.
• EU framework: Directive 2014/92 requires access to basic payment accounts, but Article 16(4) requires refusal where opening the account would breach AML/CFT rules in Directive 2015/849.

Across Fiduciaria e a. (Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing - Judgment) French Text [2026] EUECJ C-684/24 (21 May 2026)

The Court ruled on two joined requests from the Consiglio di Stato about Directive 2015/849, focusing on whether Italian "mandato fiduciario" arrangements fall within Article 31 as legal constructions with a structure or functions similar to trusts. It also addressed the validity of Article 31 rules on access to beneficial-ownership information for persons with a "legitimate interest," including in light of privacy, data protection, legal certainty, and effective judicial protection.

• Joined cases C-684/24 and C-685/24 concerned Italian fiduciary companies and public authorities over disclosure/access rules for beneficial-owner information.
• The central issue was whether fiduciary mandates concluded by Italian fiduciary companies are legal constructions similar to trusts under Article 31 of Directive 2015/849.
• The references also challenged the validity of Article 31(1), (2), (4), (7b) and (10) against the Charter and the Treaties, especially privacy and data-protection rights.

Walsh, Application for Judicial Review (Rev1) [2026] NIKB 25 (19 May 2026)

The case is a judicial review of the Victims' Payments Board Appeal Panel’s 14 May 2025 decision refusing John Walsh’s application for a victims’ payment because his injury was not caused by a “Troubles-related incident.” The judgment sets out the statutory scheme under the Northern Ireland Executive Formation etc Act 2019 and the Victims' Payments Regulations 2020, including the scheme’s purpose of acknowledging harm and promoting reconciliation.

• Applicant: John Walsh, litigant in person; proposed respondent represented by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office.
• Challenge was to the Appeal Panel’s refusal of a victims’ payment on the basis that the injury was not caused by a Troubles-related incident.
• Leave had previously been granted only on two grounds: causation on the evidence, and whether the panel relied on reasons not authorised by the statutory scheme.

Petition of William Frederick Ian Beggs for Judicial Review of acts of prison authorities in opening and reading his correspondence without reasonable cause and for delays in providing him with his correspondence (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 38 (15 April 2026)

The Court of Session considered a judicial review by William Frederick Ian Beggs, a prisoner at HMP Edinburgh, challenging how prison authorities handled his incoming correspondence between March and July 2025. The opinion sets out the governing prison correspondence rules, the prison’s mail-processing and testing arrangements, and the factual disputes over seized, delayed, and allegedly opened mail, including legal and medical correspondence.

• Petitioner: William Frederick Ian Beggs; Respondent: Scottish Ministers acting through the Scottish Prison Service.
• Challenge concerned opening/reading of correspondence without reasonable cause and delays in delivery of mail at HMP Edinburgh.
• The court described the applicable 2011 prison rules, including powers to open, copy, test, and in limited circumstances read general correspondence, and the handling of confidential correspondence.

Petition of Waldorf CNS (I) LTD for sanction of a compromise or arrangement under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 57 (05 May 2026)

The court considered Waldorf CNS (I) Limited’s petition for sanction of a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. The opinion records that the petitioner sought to compromise debts owed to the WEF Bondholders, the Super Senior Bondholders, and HMRC, and that Lord Lake granted sanction after HMRC withdrew its opposition at the Scottish hearing.

• Petitioner: Waldorf CNS (I) Limited, part of a UK Continental Shelf oil and gas group.
• Holding: sanction granted for the Part 26A restructuring plan.
• Plan effect: releases certain securities, discharges WEF bond liabilities, and pays HMRC’s EPL claim in full from SPA consideration.

Petition of Qan for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 49 (02 June 2026)

The opinion describes a judicial review brought by Qan against South Lanarkshire Council over a Brief Enquiry Decision that concluded he was not under 18 and that a full age assessment was not required. The court set out the statutory framework for local authority accommodation duties and the age-assessment regime, and identified the main issues as the competency of the declarator sought for age, the lawfulness of the Brief Enquiry Decision, and whether any legal error justified reduction. The source text provided does not include the final disposal of those issues.

• Petitioner: Qan; respondent: South Lanarkshire Council; opinion by Lady Ross in the Outer House, Court of Session.
• Facts: Qan claimed to be a Vietnamese national born on 14 June 2008; the Home Office had earlier allocated a 2001 date of birth and he later sought local authority support as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child.
• Council action: two social workers conducted a welfare check and interview; the Brief Enquiry Decision answered 'no' to whether he was under 18, whether his stated age was accurate, and whether a full age assessment was required.

Petition of For Women Scotland for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 59 (19 June 2026)

The petition challenged the Scottish Prison Service’s non-statutory guidance on managing transgender people in custody, arguing it could permit some biological men to be housed in the women’s prison estate and was unlawful after the UK Supreme Court’s decision in FWS 2. The source text frames the case as a judicial review about the lawfulness of prison-placement guidance, with the respondents arguing irrelevance and Convention-rights-based necessity, but it does not include the court’s final outcome in the excerpt provided.

• Petitioner: For Women Scotland; respondents: Scottish Government/Scottish Ministers via the Scottish Prison Service, with the Lord Advocate as a devolution respondent.
• Interveners: Scottish Human Rights Commission and Equality and Human Rights Commission.
• Challenge focused on the SPS Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody Operational Guidance issued in February 2024.

Petition of Dr Morag Hannan for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 56 (11 June 2026)

The court considered a judicial review of a planning committee’s grant of conditional permission for a 40 MW battery energy storage facility near Eaglesham. The petitioner argued that a councillor was wrongfully prevented from participating after a discussion with the monitoring officer, Mr Mahon, which was said to have been incomplete and to have amounted to misdirection, lack of natural justice, and partiality. The opinion frames the issue against the Councillors’ Code and the Scottish ethical standards regime, including the possibility of Standards Commission sanctions for breaches.

• Petitioner: Dr Morag Hannan; Respondent: the planning authority that granted permission on 15 April 2025
• Decision challenged: conditional planning permission for a 40 MW battery energy storage facility with associated infrastructure
• Core complaint: Councillor Edlin did not attend or vote after calls from monitoring officer Mr Mahon about a possible Code issue arising from comments at a community council meeting

Petition of Andrew Smith KC for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 53 (21 April 2026)

The petition challenged a Faculty of Advocates disciplinary outcome: Andrew Smith KC sought judicial review of the Disciplinary Tribunal’s 18 July 2025 decision, which had largely upheld Complaints Committee findings of professional misconduct and the severe written censure imposed on him. The opinion set out the background, the complaint history, and the issues for determination, including jurisdiction, alleged irrationality, Article 6 delay, and the competency of the remedies sought.

• Petitioner: Andrew Smith KC; respondent: Faculty of Advocates, reviewing a disciplinary process arising from complaints by Steven Elliott.
• The underlying complaints concerned alleged conflict of interest and alleged improper direct contact with a trustee in bankruptcy; the Complaints Committee upheld complaints 5 and 10 and imposed a severe written censure.
• The Disciplinary Tribunal upheld the appeal only on complaint 14 and otherwise left the merits and sanction unaltered.

Nugent, Application for Judicial Review (Re a Decision by the Coroner) [2026] NICA 16 (16 April 2026)

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland heard an appeal in a judicial review concerning a coroner’s inquest findings arising from the 3 June 1991 shooting of Anthony Doris in Coagh. The judgment sets out the appellant’s challenge to specific findings about Soldier B’s use of lethal force, the Yellow Card, and article 2 ECHR compliance, but the source text provided is truncated before the court’s final disposition.

• Appellant: Ms Roisin Nugent, daughter of the deceased Anthony (Tony) Doris; respondents included the coroner, Soldier B, and the Ministry of Defence.
• The appeal challenged only a subset of the coroner’s findings relating to Soldier B, not the actions of Soldiers A, C, or D.
• The coroner found the force used was justified, that Soldier B honestly and reasonably believed lethal force was necessary, and that the actions were within the Yellow Card guidance.

Morgan, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NICA 33 (17 June 2026)

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland heard an appeal in a judicial review concerning the Untraced Drivers' Agreement of 1 June 2004 between the Motor Insurers' Bureau and the Department for Infrastructure. The appellant, a minor represented by his grandfather, challenged the scheme on EU law, access-to-court, and discrimination grounds arising from compensation handling for injuries caused by an untraced driver.

• Appellant: Conal Morgan (a minor), by his grandfather and next friend, Patrick Ryan; respondents: Department for Infrastructure and Motor Insurers' Bureau; Secretary of State for Transport was a notice party.
• The appeal challenged the 2004 Untraced Drivers' Agreement, not a sanctions or export-control measure.
• Grounds included alleged non-compliance with EU principles of equivalence and effectiveness under Directive 2009/103/EC.

Morgan (A Minor), Re Application for Judicial Review v Department for Infrastructure & Anor [2026] NIKB 30 (17 June 2026)

The court heard an appeal by Conal Morgan, a minor, from a High Court judicial review decision dismissing his challenge to the 2004 Untraced Drivers' Agreement between the MIB and the Department for Infrastructure. The appeal concerned whether the scheme complied with EU principles of equivalence and effectiveness, and whether the procedures used to settle and appeal the minor's compensation claim unlawfully impeded access to court or discriminated under the ECHR.

• Appellant: Conal Morgan (a minor), acting by his grandfather and next friend; respondents included the Department for Infrastructure and the Motor Insurers' Bureau, with the Secretary of State for Transport as notice party.
• Challenge targeted the 2004 Untraced Drivers' Agreement, arguing non-compliance with Directive 2009/103/EC and EU principles of equivalence/effectiveness.
• Further grounds alleged interference with access to court under common law and article 6 ECHR, plus discrimination under article 14 ECHR with article 6 and A1P1.

McClure, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 16 (16 April 2026)

The judgment concerns an application for leave for judicial review challenging Belfast City Council’s use of standing orders and call-in procedures under section 41 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. It arises from council decisions on an Irish Language Policy and on flying the Palestinian flag from City Hall, and records that the Department for Communities supported the applicant’s claim that both the original standing orders and a later screening procedure were ultra vires and unlawful.

• Applicant: Ann McClure; proposed respondent: Belfast City Council; First Notice Party: Department for Communities; Second Notice Party: Derry City & Strabane District Council.
• The dispute centers on whether BCC’s standing orders 48(8)-(9) and a later screening procedure lawfully governed reconsideration after call-in requisitions under section 41 of the 2014 Act.
• The source text says BCC initially stated it would not apply the challenged standing orders to the Irish Language Policy call-in, and the Department said the original standing orders and the new procedure were ultra vires section 41.

McCabe & Anor, Re Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 24 (27 May 2026)

The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland heard a judicial review by Peter McCabe and Jeanitta McCabe challenging guidance issued by the Victims' Payments Board and two 19 December 2023 appeal-panel decisions refusing victims' payments. The dispute turned on whether the injuries from a 13 September 1990 masked-men attack at the McCabe home were caused by a 'Troubles-related incident' within the statutory scheme.

• Applicants: Peter McCabe and Jeanitta McCabe; respondent: the Victims' Payments Board.
• Challenge covered both Board guidance ('Information Note - Troubles Related Incidents and Paramilitary Style Attacks') and two appeal-panel refusals of payment.
• Core issue: whether the attack was a 'Troubles-related incident' under section 10(11) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019.

Malcomson, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 19 (29 April 2026)

The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland refused leave to apply for judicial review of a Financial Ombudsman Service decision concerning Dromara and Drumgooland Credit Union’s handling of a home-improvement loan application. The court accepted that the Ombudsman had approached the dispute under the statutory “fair and reasonable” test and had concluded that the applicant was not treated unfairly when the Credit Union offered a reduced amount and required a guarantor.

• Applicant: James Malcomson, acting as a litigant in person, challenged the Ombudsman’s 15 October 2025 decision.
• Proposed respondent: the Financial Ombudsman Service; the underlying dispute involved Dromara and Drumgooland Credit Union and a home improvement loan application.
• Holding: leave to apply for judicial review was sought against the Ombudsman’s decision; the judgment sets out the background and legal framework, including the Ombudsman’s duty to decide what is fair and reasonable.

LT AND PM, Re Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 27 (03 June 2026)

The court heard rolled-up judicial review applications by two former police officers challenging the Northern Ireland Policing Board’s fixing of the implementation dates for their injury-on-duty pension awards under the 2006 Regulations. The judgment addresses the statutory framework governing disablement, permanence, medical referral, appeal routes, and the pension payment date, but the source text provided stops before the court’s final determination or remedy.

• Applicants: LT and PM, both former police officers, challenged implementation dates for injury-on-duty awards under the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Reserve (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.
• Respondent: the Northern Ireland Policing Board, which administers the Regulations and fixes the start date for injury awards.
• Core issue: what is the correct operative implementation date for injury-on-duty pensions, especially where disability was established retrospectively after retirement.

JR349, Application for Judicial Review (Re Community Resettlement of a Patient) [2026] NIKB 28 (16 June 2026)

The court heard an urgent application for leave to seek judicial review and interim relief over linked decisions by the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Southern Health and Social Care Trust, the Department of Justice, and the RQIA concerning the resettlement of the applicant from Muckamore Abbey Hospital. The judgment explains the background to the attempted removal under a detention warrant and the wider closure/resettlement process, but the provided text is truncated before any final dispositive ruling is visible.

• Applicant: JR349, an anonymised long-stay patient at Muckamore Abbey Hospital, challenging resettlement steps and execution of a detention warrant
• Public bodies involved: Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Southern Health and Social Care Trust, Department of Justice, RQIA, and Department of Health as notice party
• Issue framed as urgent judicial review plus interim relief to restrain removal from MAH and seek continued accommodation there

JR337, Re Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 12 (27 March 2026)

The court heard a judicial review by an anonymised young Nigerian woman challenging the Home Office's domestic-abuse immigration protections, specifically the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession (MVDAC) and Appendix VDA. The judgment records that the respondent conceded the MVDAC scheme unlawfully discriminated against the applicant under article 14 read with article 8 ECHR, and offered her declaratory relief plus six months' leave outside the rules and recourse to public funds; the case then proceeded on the separate challenge to Appendix VDA.

• Applicant: JR337, an anonymised young Nigerian woman; respondent: Home Office represented by Crown Solicitor's Office.
• MVDAC was accepted by the respondent to unlawfully discriminate against the applicant because it excluded an adult child abused by a parent holding temporary work/study leave.
• The Home Office offered a declaration, six months' leave outside the rules, and recourse to public funds; the applicant rejected the open offer.

JR256, Appeal Against the Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review [2026] NICA 21 (12 May 2026)

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland dismissed an appeal against Colton J’s dismissal of an application for judicial review. The appeal concerned whether JR256 was a minor or an adult for asylum and child-welfare purposes, and the court upheld the judge’s factual conclusion, based on the evidence, that JR256 was an adult.

• Parties: JR256 (appellant) versus the Secretary of State for the Home Department (respondent).
• Holding: appeal dismissed; the lower court’s determination that JR256 was an adult was not overturned.
• Reasoning: the court relied on the evidential record, including a Manchester Merton-compliant age assessment and a Belfast Health and Social Care Trust assessment.

JR176(2), Application for Judicial Review [2026] NICA 27 (28 May 2026)

The judgment is an appeal in a judicial review brought by a male partner in a same-sex civil partnership against decisions of the Department of Health, the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, and the Health and Social Care Board concerning access to publicly funded fertility treatment. The court describes the case as turning on Northern Ireland’s fertility access criteria, including the impact of prior voluntary sterilisation and the requirement to show infertility through artificial insemination attempts; the source text provided does not include the final disposition of the appeal.

• Appellant: male partner in a same-sex civil partnership seeking publicly funded IVF with a gestational surrogate.
• Respondents: Department of Health, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, and Health and Social Care Board.
• Core issue: whether the fertility-access criteria unlawfully excluded the appellant’s proposed use of a sterilised surrogate from publicly funded treatment.

JR 335 (A Minor) & Anor, Application for Judicial Review (Rev2) [2026] NICA 29 (09 June 2026)

The judgment is an appeal in judicial review proceedings brought by two minor pupils, acting by their parents, against the refusal of leave to challenge decisions not to approve proposals for their schools to transform to controlled integrated status. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland set out the statutory and policy framework governing integrated education, including the 1989 Order as amended by the 2022 Act, and explained the statutory process for transformation proposals and ministerial approval.

• Applicants/Appellants: JR335 and JR336, minor pupils acting by parent/next friend; proposed respondents: the Minister and the Department of Education; interested party: the Education Authority.
• Challenge arose from refusal of leave to seek judicial review of decisions not to approve two school transformation proposals to integrated status.
• Court focused on the interaction between Article 64(1) of the 1989 Order, as amended to require the Department to “encourage, facilitate and support” integrated education, and Article 92(6), which bars approval unless the school would be likely to provide integrated education.

Jordan, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIDiv 2 (29 April 2026)

The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland considered Teresa Jordan’s application for leave to seek judicial review of a Public Prosecution Service no-prosecution decision concerning two police officers, M and Q. The judgment arises out of the inquest into the death of Pearse Jordan and focuses on allegations that the officers may have committed perverting the course of justice and/or perjury in connection with the inquest evidence and logbook entries.

• Applicant: Teresa Jordan, mother of Pearse Jordan; respondent: Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
• Challenge concerned a no-prosecution decision relating to police officers M and Q after a coroner found they may have committed perverting the course of justice and/or perjury.
• Background facts include the 1992 police shooting of Pearse Jordan and a later inquest in which the coroner addressed officer conduct and evidence handling.

Home Office v Shah (National Security) [2025] EAT 75 (29 May 2025)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal heard the Home Office’s appeal against a tribunal order requiring a gist of the respondent’s sex-discrimination defence to be given to Mr Shah in a case where his security clearance had been withdrawn on national security grounds. The EAT held that the tribunal had erred in making that gisting order and used the appeal to set out the correct legal test and approach for such applications in national-security employment proceedings.

• Parties: Home Office v Mr Mohammed Shah; the claimant was an Immigration Officer whose security clearance was withdrawn and who alleged direct sex discrimination.
• Core issue: whether, in closed national-security proceedings, the tribunal could require the respondent to provide the claimant with a gist of its defence.
• Holding: the tribunal’s order requiring a claimant-facing gist was wrong in law.

Gallagher, Application for Judicial Review (Re Omagh Bombing Inquiry) (Rev1) [2026] NIKB 32 (26 June 2026)

The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland considered Michael Gallagher’s application for leave to seek judicial review of Lord Turnbull’s 17 November 2025 ruling on whether special advocates could be appointed to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. The judgment frames the dispute around whether the Inquiries Act 2005 permits special advocates and, if not, whether their absence would prevent the Inquiry from meeting article 2 ECHR procedural fairness requirements.

• Applicant: Michael Gallagher; challenge to a ruling by Lord Turnbull, chair of the Omagh Bombing Inquiry
• Issue: whether the Inquiries Act 2005 allows appointment of special advocates for closed material in the Inquiry
• Reasoning: the court treats the Inquiry as an inquisitorial, not adversarial, statutory process focused on fact-finding and truth recovery

Fegan, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 26 (26 May 2026)

The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland considered a judicial review of a PSNI custody officer’s refusal to bring forward an appointed surrender-to-custody date for a bailed suspect. The applicant had been bailed in relation to cross-border fraud offences targeting the agri-business sector, and the dispute turned on whether the police had power to allow an earlier surrender date in light of Re Higgins and article 48(8) PACE.

• Applicant: Martin Fegan; respondent: PSNI custody officer / PSNI position in relation to police bail.
• Core issue: whether police could lawfully appoint an earlier surrender date, or whether bail once granted had to stand unless article 48(8) PACE applied.
• PSNI’s view, relying on Re Higgins, was that it had no power to administratively extend or change bail dates and that earlier surrender was not expressly permitted.

Duff, Application for Judicial Review (Re Decision of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council) (Rev1) [2026] NICA 30 (29 April 2026)

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland dismissed Mr Duff’s appeal for leave to apply for judicial review against a decision of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. It agreed with the lower court that leave had been correctly refused on the grounds advanced, and it also examined standing as a jurisdictional issue, expressing concerns that Mr Duff lacked standing.

• Applicant: Gordon Duff; respondent: Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council; notice party appeared in person.
• The appeal sought renewed leave to judicially review a reserved matters planning decision.
• The court held the judge was correct to refuse leave on the grounds relied on and adopted Scoffield J’s reasoning.

Drake, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NICA 17 (24 April 2026)

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland heard Margaret Drake’s appeal in judicial review proceedings challenging Coroner Toal’s notice requiring production of Dr Hussain’s expert report for an inquest into Stephen Moore’s death. The appeal focused on whether the coroner had applied the correct section 17A process and the guidance in Ketcher and Mitchell when refusing to revoke the notice.

• Parties: Margaret Drake (appellant/next of kin), Coroner Toal (respondent), and Belfast Health and Social Care Trust as notice party.
• Underlying proceeding: an inquest into the death of Stephen Moore, which the court said was not yet concluded.
• Disputed issue: the coroner required production of Dr Hussain’s report under section 17A of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959; Drake sought revocation of that notice.

DEMIRCI v. HUNGARY - 48302/21 (Art 1 P7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens - Expulsion on national security grounds : Remainder inadmissible : Second Section) [2025] ECHR 106 (06 May 2025)

The European Court of Human Rights held admissible and then found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 in relation to the first applicant’s expulsion from Hungary on national security grounds. It found that the expulsion was based on classified information not disclosed to him, without reasons and without sufficient counterbalancing safeguards, so it was not a decision reached in accordance with law. The Court also held that the second and third applicants had not shown the existence of family life for Article 8 purposes.

• Applicant: Orhan Demirci; respondent State: Hungary; co-applicants: his wife and daughter.
• Holding: violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 for expulsion on national security grounds without reasons disclosed to the applicant.
• Reasoning: reliance on classified information and a significant limitation of procedural rights, without sufficient safeguards, meant the expulsion was not “in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law.”

Clarke & Anor, Application for Judicial Review (Rev1) [2026] NICA 31 (11 June 2026)

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland heard appeals and a cross-appeal arising from judicial review proceedings brought by Robert Clarke and Paul Pollins over delays in prison healthcare assessments for Opiate Substitution Therapy (OST). The appeal was concerned with the judge’s findings on Convention rights and declarations, including awards of damages of £5,000 to Pollins and £2,000 to Clarke.

• Parties: applicants Robert Clarke and Paul Pollins; respondents included the South-Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, with the Department of Health as a notice party.
• Core issue: delay in assessing prisoners for OST within prison healthcare, compared with timelier assessment for community patients and for prisoners already on OST when admitted.
• The judge had found breaches of Pollins’ Articles 3 and 8 rights and unlawful discrimination under Article 14; Clarke’s claim was limited to Article 14 discrimination.

Berthold, Re Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 29 (17 June 2026)

The court considered an application for leave to seek judicial review against the Chief Constable of the PSNI and the Secretary of State for the Home Office. It refused leave against the Chief Constable because the restraining orders and the refusal to discharge them were decisions of the court, not the police, and therefore the Chief Constable was not the proper respondent.

• Applicant: Holger Berthold, a German national in immigration detention pending deportation to Germany.
• Respondents: Chief Constable PSNI and Secretary of State for the Home Office.
• Holding: leave to apply for judicial review against the Chief Constable was refused.

BC, qua the Financial and Welfare Guardian of CC (AP) against West Dunbartonshire Council for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 65 (14 July 2026)

The court heard a judicial review by BC, acting as financial and welfare guardian of CC, challenging West Dunbartonshire Council’s Housing Allocations Policy and the refusal of medical priority points for rehousing. The petition alleged failures under the Public Sector Equality Duty and breaches of sections 15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010, but the source text provided does not include the court’s final disposal or remedy.

• Petitioner: BC, qua financial and welfare guardian of CC; respondent: West Dunbartonshire Council.
• Challenge targeted both the Housing Allocations Policy and the 22 July 2025 appeal refusal of medical points.
• CC was said to have multiple disabilities; the family lived in council housing with damp/mould concerns and limited access due to stored items.

A and B for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 41 (24 April 2026)

The source text does not include the judgment’s substantive content; it only identifies the case as A and B for Judicial Review, [2026] CSOH 41, from the Court of Session, and provides BAILII site metadata. On the available text, the court appears merely to have issued or published a judicial review decision, but the parties’ dispute, the outcome, and the reasoning are not disclosed.

• Parties are identified only as “A and B”; no further party information is provided in the source text.
• Document type is a judicial review decision from the Scottish Court of Session, cited as [2026] CSOH 41.
• The source text contains no facts, legal issue, holding, or reasoning beyond the case label and metadata.

Z AND OTHERS v. FINLAND - 42758/23 (Art 8 - Family life - Order for return of two children from Finland to Russia under the Hague Convention following removal by their father : Remainder inadmissible : Second Section) [2025] ECHR 281 (16 December 2025)

The European Court of Human Rights dealt with a complaint by three Russian nationals against Finland about a Supreme Court order requiring the return of two children from Finland to Russia under the Hague Convention. The Court held that the domestic courts had complied with the procedural requirements of Article 8, had given relevant and sufficient reasons, and that the return order was necessary in a democratic society; the remainder of the application was inadmissible.

• Applicants: a Russian father and his two minor sons, against Finland
• Core issue: return of two children to Russia under the Hague Child Abduction Convention after removal by the father
• Holding: no Article 8 violation; domestic courts’ examination satisfied procedural requirements and proportionality

YURIY DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA - 47934/17 (Art 5 s 3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention : Remainder inadmissible : Third Section) [2026] ECHR 55 (31 March 2026)

The European Court of Human Rights examined Yuriy Dmitriyev’s complaints against Russia about the reasonableness of his pre-trial detention, the fairness of the criminal proceedings, and an alleged ulterior purpose behind his detention and prosecution. The judgment states that the domestic courts failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the first period of detention, found shortcomings in appellate review of his choice of counsel that undermined the fairness of the proceedings, and did not establish an ulterior purpose under Article 18.

• Applicant: Yuriy Dmitriyev, a Russian national and historian/human rights activist; respondent: Russia
• Article 5 § 3: domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the first period of pre-trial detention
• Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c): appellate court did not justify overriding his choice of counsel; deficiencies on appeal were not cured on cassation review

Traugott Ickeroth (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in view of the Russian Federation's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-67/25 (02 July 2026)

The Court interpreted Article 2f(1) of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, in criminal proceedings arising from the broadcasting of RT Germany videos on a website run by natural persons and funded only by voluntary contributions. It held that the concept of “operator” can include natural persons who, through a website operated by them, generate income only from donations or gifts, so the broadcast prohibition may be relied on against them.

• Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken in criminal proceedings against R, N and K
• Issue: whether “operator” under Article 2f(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 covers natural persons running a website financed solely by voluntary contributions
• The underlying conduct involved making RT Germany videos available on the traugott-ickeroth website

Traugott Ickeroth (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in view of Russia.s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Opinion) [2026] EUECJ C-67/25_O (12 February 2026)

This is an Advocate General’s opinion on a German reference asking how Article 2f(1) of Regulation 833/2014 should be read in a criminal case involving dissemination of RT Deutschland videos via a public blog. The opinion addresses whether natural persons operating a website that is funded only by voluntary donations can fall within the term “operators” for purposes of the EU broadcasting prohibition tied to Russia sanctions.

• Case arose from criminal proceedings against R, N and K for broadcasting RT Deutschland content through the publicly accessible traugott-ickeroth website.
• The referring court asked whether “operators” under Article 2f(1) includes natural persons whose site earns only voluntary contributions/donations.
• Regulation 833/2014 prohibits operators from broadcasting or facilitating broadcast of listed entities’ content, including via internet platforms and applications.

Thompson, Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 29 (20 May 2025)

The court considered an application for leave to seek judicial review of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s decision to specify the Court of Appeal in England and Wales as the relevant appellate court for any appeal from the Tribunal’s decision on the applicant’s complaint. The underlying complaint concerned alleged security-service conduct connected to the investigation of her father’s 1987 murder, but the judgment excerpt focuses on the procedural legality of the appeal forum under RIPA rather than the merits of those allegations.

• Applicant: Noreen Thompson; respondents: the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
• Core issue: whether the IPT acted lawfully under section 67A of RIPA by designating the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, rather than the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, as the appeal court.
• The IPT had dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under section 65 of RIPA, saying the relevant events pre-dated RIPA/HRA and/or were not in challengeable circumstances.

Thompson, Re Application for Judicial Review (Rev1) [2025] NICA 25 (13 May 2025)

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland considered whether a coroner, after closing an inquest, could lawfully revisit an anonymity order protecting “Soldier D” following findings that he had unlawfully shot Kathleen Thompson’s mother. The judgment addresses the scope of a coroner’s post-closure powers, including whether the coroner was functus officio and whether anonymity could still be reconsidered after the inquest was formally closed.

• Applicant: William Thompson; respondent: Coroners Service for Northern Ireland; notice party: Ministry of Defence.
• Background: Soldier D had been anonymised during the inquest because of assessed risk to life; the coroner later found he had shot the deceased in unjustified circumstances.
• High Court held the coroner erred by failing to reconsider anonymity after making those findings, but also held she was functus officio when the request was made.

Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority [2026] QIC (RT) 1 (04 May 2026)

The source text only identifies the case title, citation, court family, and date: Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority [2026] QIC (RT) 1, decided 04 May 2026. It does not include any judgment text, issues, findings, or orders, so the substantive holding cannot be determined from the provided source.

• Parties named: Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority.
• Citation/date only: [2026] QIC (RT) 1, 04 May 2026.
• Source text does not provide the court’s reasoning, outcome, or remedy.

Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority [2026] QIC (A) 9 (09 April 2026)

The source text only identifies the case name, citation, court series, and date: Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority [2026] QIC (A) 9 (09 April 2026). It does not provide the judgment’s facts, issues, holding, or reasoning, so no substantive legal outcome can be reliably summarized from the text provided.

• Parties named: Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP versus Qatar Financial Centre Authority.
• Citation/date: [2026] QIC (A) 9, 09 April 2026.
• Source text contains no factual background, legal issue, disposition, or reasoning.

Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority [2026] QIC (A) 7 (30 March 2026)

The source text is only a BAILII catalogue entry for Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority [2026] QIC (A) 7, identifying the case title, court series, citation, date, and that English and Arabic versions exist. It does not include the judgment text, so it does not disclose the dispute, the court’s reasoning, or the outcome.

• Parties identified: Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority.
• Source is a Qatar International Court appeal decision, cited as [2026] QIC (A) 7 and dated 30 March 2026.
• No substantive holding, facts, or reasoning are provided in the source text.

Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority and Qatar Financial Center Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC, and Mohammed Al-Emadi [2026] QIC (A) 6 (29 March 2026)

The source text only identifies the case caption, citation, court series, and decision date for Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority and Qatar Financial Center Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC, and Mohammed Al-Emadi [2026] QIC (A) 6 (29 March 2026). It does not include the judgment text, so no substantive holding, reasoning, or relief can be extracted from the provided source.

• Parties listed: Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority and Qatar Financial Center Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC and Mohammed Al-Emadi
• Citation/date shown: [2026] QIC (A) 6, 29 March 2026
• Source text provides only BAILII metadata and links, not the judgment’s facts, issues, or disposition

Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority and Qatar Financial Center Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC, and Mohammed Al-Emadi [2026] QIC (A) 2 (12 February 2026)

The provided source text does not include the body of the judgment or any substantive ruling; it only identifies the case title, citation, court, parties, and date. On that record, the court’s actual holding, reasoning, and relief granted cannot be determined from the source text alone.

• Parties named: Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority and Qatar Financial Center Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC and Mohammed Al-Emadi
• Citation/date only: [2026] QIC (A) 2, 12 February 2026
• Source text contains no facts, procedural history, issues, holding, or reasons

Qatar Financial Centre Employment Standards Office v Expert Credit Solutions Consultancy LLC [2026] QIC (F) 5 (29 March 2026)

The source text identifies a Qatar International Court case captioned Qatar Financial Centre Employment Standards Office v Expert Credit Solutions Consultancy LLC, cited as [2026] QIC (F) 5 and dated 29 March 2026. It does not include the judgment text, so it does not disclose any substantive holding, reasoning, or relief granted.

• Parties named: Qatar Financial Centre Employment Standards Office v Expert Credit Solutions Consultancy LLC.
• Jurisdiction/citation: Qatar International Court, [2026] QIC (F) 5, dated 29 March 2026.
• The provided source is only the case listing/page header; no operative facts, issues, or decision are included.

Pumpyanskiy v Council (Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the military aggression against Ukraine - Concept of 'leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation' - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-696/23P (26 March 2026)

The Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) heard five joined appeals challenging EU restrictive measures adopted in response to the military aggression against Ukraine, including measures based on the category of “leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.” The judgment addresses whether the General Court erred in its interpretation and application of that sanctions criterion, as well as related Charter, proportionality, equal treatment, and legality arguments.

• Joined appeals by Dmitry Alexandrovich Pumpyanskiy, Tigran Khudaverdyan, Viktor Filippovich Rashnikov, Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin, and German Khan against the Council of the European Union.
• The case concerns Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as amended in March 2022, imposing freezing of funds and economic resources.
• The Court considers the meaning of “leading businesspersons involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation.”

Peter John Fanning and Florence Agnes Fanning for Judicial Review of the decisions by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Scottish Ministers to cut the Winter Fuel Payment (Court of Session) [2025] CSOH 50 (13 June 2025)

The Court of Session judgment concerns a judicial review challenge to decisions by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Scottish Ministers to cut winter fuel support for winter 2024/25. The petitioners sought declarators, reduction of the challenged policy decisions and regulations, and orders relating to Equality Act compliance and consultation, but the source text provided does not include the court’s final holdings on those claims.

• Petitioners: Peter John Fanning and Florence Agnes Fanning; respondents: the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Scottish Ministers.
• Challenge focused on the change from universal winter fuel support to means-tested support linked to Pension Credit, and on the Scottish Pension Age Winter Heating Payment.
• Claims included failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010 public sector equality duty, inadequate EQIA, failure to consult, irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness, and Human Rights Act arguments under Articles 2 and 8.

Pearce v Minister for Justice and Home Affairs (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Binnington : Judicial Review) [2026] JRC 003 (5 January 2026)

The Royal Court was dealing with an application for leave to seek judicial review of the Minister’s decision to recall Darius James Pearce to prison after conditional early release. The judgment explains the CER framework, the recall decision, and the applicant’s alleged breaches of licence conditions, especially contact with Karen Evans; it also notes that part of his original representation concerned an unrelated claim for an engagement ring.

• Parties: Darius James Pearce v Minister for Justice and Home Affairs, before Commissioner A. R. Binnington.
• Issue: leave to apply for judicial review of a recall to prison following release under the Conditional Early Release Scheme.
• Reasoning: the court set out Rule 64 of the Prison (Jersey) Rules 2007, under which recall may be ordered even without a breach, and the delegated powers under the States of Jersey Law 2005.

Opera Laboratori Fiorentini (Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-313/24 (12 February 2026)

The Court gave a preliminary ruling on Article 5k(1)(c) of Regulation No 833/2014, in a dispute over an Italian public contract awarded to Scudieri International for services at the Uffizi Gallery. The case turned on whether a company with Russian nationals on its board, including one who was also sole administrator of its parent company, could be treated as acting "on behalf or at the direction" of a Russian-linked entity for sanctions purposes.

• Parties: Opera Laboratori Fiorentini challenged an Italian Ministry of Culture/Uffizi Gallery award to Scudieri International; A.L.E.S. and Scudieri International were joined in the proceedings.
• Issue: whether Article 5k(1)(c) of Regulation 833/2014 barred the award/continuation of a public contract to a company allegedly acting on behalf of or at the direction of a Russian-linked person or entity.
• Sanctions context: the provision is part of EU restrictive measures adopted in response to Russia’s actions destabilising Ukraine, and specifically extends to certain public procurement and concessions.

NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA (No. 4) - 4743/21 (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Third Section) [2026] ECHR 19 (03 February 2026)

The European Court of Human Rights held that Russia unlawfully detained Aleksey Navalnyy after activating his suspended sentence based on the 2014 conviction, and also unlawfully detained him pending the activation proceedings. It found that the earlier criminal case had been previously condemned by the Court as a flagrant denial of justice and that the domestic courts used an unforeseeable, legally expansive application of Russian law; the judgment also addressed Article 2, Article 3, and Article 34 issues arising from the same detention episode.

• Applicant: Aleksey Anatolyevich Navalnyy; respondent: Russian Federation; applications nos. 4743/21 and 37083/21.
• Article 5 § 1: detention after activation of the suspended sentence was unlawful because it was causally tied to the 2014 conviction, which had already been found to violate Articles 6 and 7.
• Article 5 § 1: pending the activation proceedings, domestic courts applied legal provisions by “analogy” contrary to their wording, breaching legal certainty.

Mull Campus Working Group LTD for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 11 (18 February 2026)

This opinion records a judicial review by Mull Campus Working Group Limited challenging the respondent council’s 7 March 2025 decision on selecting a preferred site for a new educational establishment on Mull. The background sets out the LEIP-funded project, the council’s earlier choice of a single-campus model, and the community engagement and site-selection process that followed.

• Petitioner: Mull Campus Working Group Limited; respondent: the local authority responsible for education provision on Mull.
• Challenge was to the 7 March 2025 preferred-site decision, not to the earlier December 2024 decision to pursue a single-campus model.
• The court emphasized the limited role of judicial review: it reviews lawfulness, not whether the council’s decision was right or wrong.

McKearney & Ors, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 9 (03 March 2026)

The High Court in Northern Ireland heard four joined applications for leave to seek judicial review, each seeking mandatory orders requiring the Secretary of State to establish a public inquiry into Troubles-era deaths. The judgment mainly sets out the factual background, explains that each case involved prior inquests complicated or closed by public interest immunity and national security-sensitive material, and notes that the Secretary of State argued the applications should be stayed or adjourned pending the Supreme Court decision in Re Dillon.

• Applicants: Bernadette McKearney, Anthony Fox, Linda Hewitt, and Raymond McCord, each seeking a public inquiry into a family member's death
• Core issue: whether the Secretary of State should be compelled to establish public inquiries after inquests were closed or effectively blocked by PII and national-security material
• Reasoning described: the current law in Northern Ireland appeared to make the applications arguable, but the Secretary of State said Re Dillon may change the law materially

McAleenon, Application for Judicial Review (Re Nuisance Odour and Pollution Arising from Mullaghglass Landfill Site) [2025] NICA 44 (16 September 2025)

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland considered Ms McAleenon’s judicial review challenge concerning alleged nuisance odour and pollution from Mullaghglass landfill site. It reviewed whether Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, and the Minister/DAERA had failed in their statutory and Article 8 duties, against a background where the site was already closed and complaints had diminished.

• Appellant: Noeleen McAleenon; respondents: Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, and the Minister/DAERA; Alpha Resource Management Ltd was the notice party.
• The court identified three appeal issues: alleged breach of the council’s duty to investigate statutory nuisance, alleged unlawful failure by NIEA/DAERA to identify a lifetime H2S exposure risk, and alleged Article 8 ECHR breaches.
• The judgment recites the earlier findings that the council investigated, referred matters to the NIEA, and concluded there was no statutory nuisance; the NIEA/DAERA claim was framed as one turning on Wednesbury irrationality.

MALACHINI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 9184/09 (Article 2 - Right to life : Second Section) [2026] ECHR 122 (23 June 2026)

The European Court of Human Rights examined applications by Georgian nationals against Russia concerning the alleged torture and killing of Georgian prisoners of war during the August 2008 armed conflict. The judgment found Russia had jurisdiction over complaints tied to the events in South Ossetia, held that the deaths of three prisoners engaged Russia’s responsibility under Article 2, and found Article 3 violations for torture and the lack of an effective investigation. It also awarded just satisfaction, limiting payment to losses not already compensated in Georgia v. Russia (II) to avoid double recovery.

• Applicants were Georgian nationals; the case concerned prisoners of war captured in South Ossetia during the five-day active phase of hostilities in August 2008.
• The Court found Russia had jurisdiction in relation to events in the administrative capital of South Ossetia and, for some complaints, over detainees held beyond the active phase of hostilities.
• Article 2: the deaths of three Georgian prisoners of war occurred in circumstances engaging Russia’s responsibility, and Russia failed to account for their deaths.

KANDEMIR v. TURKIYE - 30906/19 (Art 6 s 1 (civil) - Fair trial - Ineffective judicial review of the grounds for the applicant's dismissal, following the declaration of a state of emergency : Preliminary objection dismissed : Second Section) French Text [2026] ECHR 18 (03 February 2026)

The European Court of Human Rights heard a case brought by Mehmet Kandemir against Türkiye over the termination of his employment at TÜBİTAK-BİLGEM after the 2016 state of emergency. The source text states that the case concerned Article 6 § 1 and Article 15, and that the Court dismissed the preliminary objection. The judgment text says the domestic courts’ review of the dismissal was ineffective because their reasoning did not sufficiently explain why criminal proceedings against third parties or administrative irregularities could, by themselves, create suspicion about the applicant and justify breaking the employment relationship. It also states that the Article 15 derogation did not justify the failure to provide a fair procedure.

• Applicant: Mehmet Kandemir; respondent: Türkiye; dispute arose after his dismissal from TÜBİTAK-BİLGEM during the post-coup state of emergency.
• Holding: preliminary objection dismissed; Article 6 § 1 fair-trial violation found on the source text’s framing; Article 15 derogation did not cure the procedural defect.
• Reasoning: domestic judgments lacked sufficient motivation on why third-party criminal proceedings or administrative irregularities justified suspicion against the applicant.

JR338 & Ors, Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 67 (12 December 2025)

The judgment concerns a judicial review challenge to the Department of Education’s selection methodology for allocating RAISE programme funding in Northern Ireland. The court records the programme’s development from the NDNA/A Fair Start process through to a simplified area-selection methodology and the applicants’ allegations that geography, religion, and the downgrading of FSME were unlawfully used to determine funding. The source text provided does not include the court’s final disposition or remedy.

• Applicants: JR338, JR339, and Yazmin McGivern-Belkessam challenged DE/Minister for Education’s RAISE selection methodology
• Core allegations: geography and religion were said to have been allowed to trump need, allegedly disadvantaging Belfast, Derry, and Catholics
• A third challenge argued that downgrading FSME as a need indicator was irrational and discriminatory

JR332, Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 33 (04 June 2025)

The court considered an application for leave to challenge the Home Office decision of 9 December 2024 to temporarily pause all Syrian asylum claims. Humphreys J held that the challenge was arguable and analysed the pause against the Immigration Rules, the 2005 Procedures Directive framework, UNHCR guidance, and the applicant’s claims of ultra vires, unlawfulness under the Windsor Framework/EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, article 8 ECHR breach, and irrationality.

• Applicant: a Syrian national living in Northern Ireland seeking to challenge the pause on Syrian asylum decisions.
• Decision under challenge: the Secretary of State’s 9 December 2024 pause of all Syrian asylum claims.
• Reasoning: the judgment focuses on whether the Secretary of State had power to pause decisions, and on the interaction between decision-making and the need for reliable, up-to-date country information.

JR330, Re Applications for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 3 (23 January 2026)

The judgment concerns two Northern Ireland judicial review applications challenging Home Office decisions that the applicants’ asylum claims were inadmissible because Bulgaria was treated as a safe third country. The applicants argued that delay in making the inadmissibility decisions was unfair and breached Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, and also contended that removal to Bulgaria would breach Article 3 ECHR; the source text also records a broader Windsor Framework compatibility challenge to the statutory scheme.

• Two Syrian asylum seekers, anonymised as JR330 and JR331, challenged SSHD inadmissibility decisions made under sections 80B and 80C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and related humanitarian protection rules.
• The Home Office relied on Bulgaria as the relevant connection and on statutory presumptions in Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, including a presumption against Article 3 breach.
• The applicants’ grounds were grouped as a Windsor Framework/section 7A challenge, procedural unfairness and legitimate expectation, and a safety-of-Bulgaria challenge.

I.C. v. TURKIYE - 48061/19 (Art 6 s 1 (civil) - Fair trial - Insufficient judicial review of the dismissal of a lecturer at a founding university - Remainder inadmissible : Second Section) French Text [2026] ECHR 5 (13 January 2026)

The European Court of Human Rights held that Türkiye had provided insufficient judicial review of a lecturer’s dismissal from a foundation university after the state of emergency decrees were used to end his contract on the basis that his name appeared among ByLock users. The Court found that the domestic courts did not gather information or documents on the accuracy of that allegation and did not give the applicant a real opportunity to challenge it; it also held that the Article 15 derogation did not justify the shortfall in fair-trial guarantees.

• Applicant: I.C., a lecturer at TOBB University; respondent: Türkiye
• Dismissal was based on emergency decrees 667 and 668 and an alleged ByLock connection
• Held: Article 6 § 1 violated because judicial review was insufficient and equality of arms was undermined

Hauptzollamt Dusseldorf (Vehicule originaire de Russie) (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the actions of the Russian Federation destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-619/24 (05 February 2026)

The Court gave a preliminary ruling on Article 3i of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, in a dispute between JG, a Russian citizen in Düsseldorf, and the Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf over the seizure of a second-hand motor vehicle bought in Russia and brought into Germany. It interpreted the sanctions rule as covering the importation of Annex XXI goods because they are listed goods, and addressed the later registration provision in Article 3i(3ad) in relation to vehicles already in the EU on 19 December 2023.

• Parties: JG v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf; reference from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf.
• Core issue: whether import bans under Article 3i(1) apply only if the specific goods are shown to generate significant revenues for Russia.
• Sanctions angle: the case concerns Regulation 833/2014 and Annex XXI, including CN code 8703 motor vehicles.

Gallagher, Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 73 (16 December 2025)

The judgment concerns an application for leave to seek judicial review of Queen’s University Belfast’s decision, made on 14 October 2024, to expel Dominic Gallagher after a lengthy disciplinary process. The court records the misconduct findings, the appeal route, and that the conduct committee screened out his appeal on procedural-error grounds; the extracted text does not include the final leave decision beyond that procedural history.

• Applicant: Dominic Gallagher, a litigant in person; proposed respondent: Queen’s University Belfast, represented by counsel.
• Underlying dispute: disciplinary findings for abusive/threatening/harassing behaviour, a threat to slap a fellow student, disruptive classroom conduct, and breach of the Student Charter.
• A physical-assault allegation against Gallagher was dismissed; his counter-complaint that he had been assaulted was upheld.

Electricity & Water Authority of the Government of Bahrain and Others (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-672/23 (16 April 2026)

The Court gave a preliminary ruling on Article 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 in private damages proceedings brought by EWAGB and Others against multiple corporate defendants, and in parallel proceedings brought by Smurfit Kappa and Others against Unilever and Others. The case concerned when claims against multiple defendants are “so closely connected” that they should be heard together to avoid irreconcilable judgments, in the context of alleged Article 101 TFEU/EEA competition infringements and damages for harm said to have occurred outside the EEA.

• Parties included the Electricity & Water Authority of the Government of Bahrain, the GCC Interconnection Authority, the Kuwait Ministry of Electricity and Water, and Oman Electricity Transmission Company SAOC.
• The reference asked how Article 8(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 applies to multiple-defendant cartel damages claims.
• The judgment frames the issue around “so closely connected” claims, an “anchor defendant,” and the risk of irreconcilable judgments.

Drake, Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 70 (12 December 2025)

This judicial review concerns a coroner’s use of section 17A of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 to require Margaret Drake to produce an expert report by Dr Husain that she had commissioned for an inquest into the death of Stephen Moore. The judgment sets out the procedural history and statutory framework, including the coroner’s earlier refusal to revoke the notice, but the provided text does not include the court’s final determination on the challenge.

• Applicant: Margaret Drake, the deceased’s next of kin and a properly interested person in the inquest.
• Respondent/notice party: the Coroners Service; Belfast Health & Social Care Trust was also a notice party.
• Issue: whether the coroner could compel production of a privately commissioned expert report under section 17A of the 1959 Act.

Donnelly, Application for Judicial Review (Re the Grant of a Firearms Certificate) (Rev1) [2025] NIKB 59 (21 October 2025)

The judgment concerns Philip Donnelly’s renewed application for leave to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s 24 February 2025 refusal of his firearms-certificate appeal. It recites the long procedural history, including repeated refusals based on concerns that he was associated with a paramilitary organisation, and the continuing dispute about disclosure of the material relied upon by decision-makers.

• Applicant: Philip Donnelly; proposed respondent: Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with the PSNI/Chief Constable central to the underlying decisions.
• Issue: refusal of a firearms certificate/appeal under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 on the basis that the applicant was not a fit person to be entrusted with a firearm.
• Reasoning in the background litigation focused on public-interest non-disclosure of security-sensitive material and the balance between fairness and firearms control.

DANILET v ROMANIA - 16915/21 (Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} : Grand Chamber) [2025] ECHR 276 (15 December 2025)

The Grand Chamber examined whether Romania’s disciplinary sanction against judge Vasilică-Cristi Danileț for two Facebook posts violated Article 10 of the Convention. It held that the interference was not justified: the applicant’s remarks concerned matters of public interest, the reasons given were neither relevant nor sufficient, and the sanction failed the "pressing social need" test.

• Applicant: Romanian judge Vasilică-Cristi Danileț; respondent: Romania; issue was a disciplinary sanction for Facebook posts.
• Grand Chamber consolidated and clarified Article 10 principles on judges’ and prosecutors’ freedom of expression on the internet and social media.
• The Court applied a multi-factor review: content and form of the messages, context, consequences, capacity in which the applicant posted, severity of sanction, chilling effect, and procedural safeguards.

ANTI-CORRUPTION FOUNDATION (FBK) AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 13505/20 (Art 8 - Private life - Home - Correspondence - Mass searches of homes and offices of persons and entities associated with Aleksey Navalnyy and seizure of property during searches : Remainder inadmissible : Third Section) [2025] ECHR 277 (16 December 2025)

The European Court of Human Rights dealt with 139 applications against Russia arising from mass searches, seizures, account-freezing orders, “foreign agent” and “extremist” designations, and related measures targeting people and entities associated with Aleksey Navalnyy. The judgment states that the search authorisations, account-freezing orders, and seizure of money were not in accordance with the law, and that the broader measures were part of a concerted effort to eliminate the organised democratic opposition centred around Navalnyy.

• Applicants included FBK, Navalnyy-linked organisations, associates, and in some cases family members; the case concerned homes, offices, bank accounts, and organisational status measures.
• Article 8: mass searches relied on standard-form applications lacking individualised reasoning; domestic courts failed to provide effective judicial scrutiny, so the interference was not "in accordance with the law".
• Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: bank-account freezes lacked individualised justification, periodic review, and a factual basis; seizure and retention of cash during searches occurred without the judicial authorisation required by domestic law.

AL NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA - 31908/22 (Art 1 - Jurisdiction of respondent State for alleged Convention violations of a terrorist suspect's right during the United States ("US") Central Intelligence Agency extraordinary rendition operations : Remainder inadmissible : Second Section) [2026] ECHR 138 (07 July 2026)

The Court examined whether Lithuania could be responsible under Article 1 of the Convention for alleged violations arising from the CIA’s extraordinary rendition and secret detention operations, and it held that responsibility was capable of being engaged. It also found some complaints inadmissible because they were substantially the same as matters already examined by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, while holding that the applicant’s Article 8 complaint about incommunicado detention and denial of family contact was not in accordance with law and unjustified.

• Applicant: Abd Al Rahim Hussein Al Nashiri; respondent State: Lithuania; case concerned alleged CIA secret detention in Lithuania from 6 October 2005 to 25 March 2006
• Article 1 jurisdiction: Court said Lithuania’s responsibility for alleged Convention violations was capable of being engaged
• Inadmissibility: Article 35 § 2(b) barred complaints substantially the same as those already examined individually by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Aegis Services LLC v Bakertilly Advisory Services LLC (formerly Moore Qatar) [2026] QIC (F) 21 (01 June 2026)

The provided source text identifies a Qatar International Court case titled Aegis Services LLC v Bakertilly Advisory Services LLC (formerly Moore Qatar) [2026] QIC (F) 21, dated 1 June 2026. It does not include the judgment’s facts, holdings, reasoning, or remedy, so no substantive legal outcome can be extracted from the text provided.

• Parties identified: Aegis Services LLC and Bakertilly Advisory Services LLC (formerly Moore Qatar).
• Court/date identified only from the citation: Qatar International Court, [2026] QIC (F) 21, 1 June 2026.
• Source text is a BAILII landing page and does not provide the court’s holding or reasoning.

Zobortrans EU sro v Director of Border Revenue [2026] UKUT 12 (TCC) (07 January 2026)

The Upper Tribunal reconsidered an application for permission to appeal by Zobortrans EU s.r.o. against a First-tier Tribunal decision upholding Border Force restoration fees for vehicles seized in connection with smuggled tobacco and cigarettes. The source text explains the underlying dispute and the grounds advanced, but the excerpt provided does not include the Upper Tribunal’s final permission-to-appeal outcome or any substantive alteration of the FTT decision.

• Parties: Zobortrans EU s.r.o. versus the Director of Border Revenue on behalf of Border Force.
• Underlying facts: Border Force seized vehicles used to transport smuggled hand rolling tobacco and cigarettes in 2018-2019 and offered restoration only on payment of fees.
• FTT held the Border Force restoration decisions were not unreasonable for the third and fourth seizures.

Ziga & Ors v Yarnold & Ors (LAND REGISTRATION - COSTS - litigants in person) [2026] UKUT 181 (LC) (07 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s costs assessment in a land-registration dispute, focusing on how a litigant in person’s recoverable costs should be calculated. It held that the costs judge had not properly considered the evidence of Dr Razoq’s alleged financial loss and had instead focused on what evidence was missing, including when assessing the hourly rate and the application of the two-thirds cap under CPR r.46.5(2).

• Parties: appellants were Senada Ziga, Sensar Limited, Adil Razoq and Azdar Limited; respondents were three sets of landowners concerning 1, 5 and 9 Springbank Gardens, Wigan.
• Context: the costs dispute arose after the appellants succeeded in earlier FTT and UT proceedings concerning restrictions on registered titles.
• Holding: appeal allowed on the costs assessment issue.

XY v Disclosure And Barring Service [2026] UKUT 149 (AAC) (14 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal refused the Disclosure and Barring Service’s application to strike out XY’s appeal, holding that the 30 December 2024 DBS letter was legally capable of amounting to a substantive paragraph 18(5) review decision rather than a non-appealable refusal to grant permission to review. The Tribunal said the communicated decision, despite internal inconsistency, conveyed that XY’s name should remain on the barred lists, which was enough to engage the statutory appeal right under section 4(1)(c) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

• Parties: XY appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service; Upper Tribunal Judge Brewer decided the strike-out application.
• Issue: whether DBS’s 30 December 2024 communication was only a refusal to permit a review under paragraph 18(4), or a substantive review decision under paragraph 18(5).
• Holding: strike-out refused because the notified decision was treated as one not to remove XY from the barred lists, so jurisdiction existed.

X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) Re (Rev1) [2026] UKSC 13 (22 April 2026)

The Supreme Court considered whether a validly made adoption order can be set aside other than on appeal. It held that the Adoption and Children Act 2002 creates a final and permanent statutory scheme for adoption and does not provide a non-statutory inherent-jurisdiction route to revoke a valid adoption order; in this case, the point was treated as important notwithstanding that X and Y were no longer children and no inherent-jurisdiction order could be made for them.

• Parties included the adoptive mother (AM), the natural mother (BM), the children X and Y, and an intervener, the Secretary of State for Education.
• The central question was whether a court has jurisdiction to set aside a valid adoption order other than by appeal.
• The Court said adoption is a creature of statute and the ACA 2002 contains no provision for revoking a valid adoption order on welfare grounds.

Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v North Northamptonshire Council (PARK HOMES - SITE LICENSING - licence condition requiring licensing authority's consent to any material change in site layout - conditions regulating access and parking - whether conditions unduly burdensome - FTT permitting local authority to amend licence condition during appeal - whether a procedural irregularity - ss. 5, 7, 9, Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960) [2026] UKUT 52 (LC) (06 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered an appeal by Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd against North Northamptonshire Council over three site-licence conditions for Wilby Caravan Park under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. It allowed the appeal in part, addressing whether a consent-to-layout-change condition, an emergency-access condition, and a parking-ratio condition were unduly burdensome, and whether the First-tier Tribunal had committed a procedural irregularity by modifying a condition during the appeal.

• Parties: Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v North Northamptonshire Council; site licence for Wilby Caravan Park, Northamptonshire.
• Issue: condition 6 required prior written consent for any material change in site layout; Wyldecrest argued this was unduly burdensome.
• Issue: condition 11 regulated emergency-vehicle access; condition 34 imposed parking spaces at a fixed ratio of one per caravan plus one per five caravans.

WML v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2026] UKUT 178 (AAC) (06 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision for material error of law, and remade the case on the same substantive outcome. It held that the claimant was not entitled to Income Support with the Severe Disability Premium for the periods in issue, namely from 12 March 2017 or 20 December 2019 through 11 February 2022. The tribunal also noted the proceedings were subject to a Rule 14 anonymity order.

• Parties: WML v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber).
• Holding: First-tier Tribunal committed a material error of law; appeal allowed; decision set aside and remade.
• Substance: claimant was not entitled to Income Support with Severe Disability Premium for the relevant periods.

Wilson v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKUT 199 (AAC) (18 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in an information-rights appeal and remitted the case for rehearing by a fresh tribunal. It held that the FTT’s handling of closed material and the paper determination process was procedurally irregular, and that it had not adequately demonstrated the correct approach to regulation 12 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

• Parties: Mr Peter Wilson appealed against the Information Commissioner; the underlying request concerned Shropshire Council information.
• Holding: the UT found errors of law, set aside the FTT decision under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and remitted for a fresh oral hearing.
• Reasoning: the FTT gave a gist of withheld material only after dismissing the appeal, leaving no meaningful chance to respond; this failed the duty to minimise disadvantage from closed material.

VDS (Deportation; conduct; IP Completion Day) Italy [2026] UKUT 152 (IAC) (16 October 2025)

The Upper Tribunal considered the Secretary of State’s appeal against a First-tier Tribunal decision that had allowed VDS’s appeals against both a deportation order decision and a refusal of his human rights claim. The tribunal held that, where conduct spans both before and after IP completion day, the Stage 1 deportation decision and the Stage 2 human-rights refusal engage different considerations; for Stage 1, the SSHD could rely only on post-IP-completion-day conduct in applying the domestic deportation regime under Article 20(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement.

• Parties: Secretary of State for the Home Department v VDS, an Italian/EU citizen with anonymity order.
• Holding: Stage 1 deportation and Stage 2 human-rights refusal are distinct decisions requiring different considerations.
• Reasoning: A sentence is imposed for the current offence; pre-IP-completion-day conduct considered by the sentencing judge cannot be transposed into the Stage 1 deportation decision.

UW v Cheam Academies Network (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS) [2026] UKUT 53 (AAC) (04 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal held that the First-tier Tribunal had made an error of law in treating the school’s behaviour policy as outside the scope of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, but that error was not material so the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was not set aside. It also held that the wrong respondent had initially been named, but the retrospective substitution of the multi-academy trust cured that defect and caused no material unfairness.

• Parties: UW appealed against Cheam Academies Network, the proprietor of the school’s multi-academy trust, in disability discrimination claims concerning UW’s child, C.
• Holding on jurisdiction: the duty to make reasonable adjustments can apply to a school’s behaviour policy, including sanctions and exclusions; the First-tier Tribunal was wrong to say otherwise.
• Materiality: despite that legal error, the Upper Tribunal said it was not material to the decision and did not set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s ruling.

UniCredit Bank GmbH, London Branch v Constitution Aircraft Leasing (Ireland) 3 Ltd and another [2026] UKSC 10 (25 March 2026)

The Supreme Court considered whether UniCredit’s London branch was prohibited by Russia sanctions from paying under letters of credit connected to leases of civilian aircraft to Russian airlines, and whether section 44 of SAMLA could shield it from civil liability. It held that regulation 28(3)(c), as amended from 1 March 2022, did prohibit the payments until licences were obtained, and it also addressed the scope of section 44 in relation to debt, interest, and costs.

• Parties: UniCredit Bank GmbH, London Branch v Constitution Aircraft Leasing (Ireland) 3 Ltd and Celestial Aviation Services Ltd
• Core sanctions issue: whether payments under letters of credit were prohibited by amended regulation 28(3)(c) of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
• Holding on sanctions: the Court of Appeal had held payment was prohibited and suspended until licences were obtained; the Supreme Court judgment concerns that issue and section 44 SAMLA

U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 19 (12 May 2025)

The Supreme Court considered how SIAC should approach disputes about facts relevant to national security in appeals against deprivation of British citizenship and refusal of entry clearance. It framed the issue around the effect of Begum and Rehman, and the source text shows that the case concerned whether SIAC should make its own findings on the factual “building blocks” of the Secretary of State’s national security assessment or instead review that assessment on public law grounds.

• Appellant: U3; Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department; SIAC appeals arose from deprivation of citizenship and refusal of entry clearance.
• Secretary of State had deprived U3 of citizenship under s 40(2) British Nationality Act 1981 and later refused entry clearance under the Immigration Act 1971 framework.
• National security certificates under s 40A(2) of the 1981 Act and s 97 of the 2002 Act routed both matters to SIAC.

Travel Express Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (Transport (Traffic Commissioner and Dfl NI) appeals - Decisions and Reasons) [2026] UKUT 167 (AAC) (14 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed Travel Express Ltd’s appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s revocation of its PSV operator’s licence. It held that the Commissioner had erred in law by treating an equivocal Vehicle Examiner statement — that the operator ‘could be deemed’ not to have complied with a 12-week roller brake testing undertaking — as confirmation that the undertaking had in fact been breached, and set aside the revocation direction.

• Parties: Travel Express Ltd appealed against the Secretary of State for Transport / Traffic Commissioner decision.
• Holding: appeal allowed; revocation of operator’s licence PD1140735 set aside for error of law.
• Reasoning: the Examiner’s wording was equivocal and could not properly be read as proving non-compliance with the 12-week brake-testing undertaking.

The Information Commissioner v Clearview AI Incorporated [2025] UKUT 319 (AAC) (06 October 2025)

The Upper Tribunal allowed the Information Commissioner’s appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred in law on the material-scope question, and set aside and remitted the case for the First-tier Tribunal to decide the substantive appeal on the basis that the ICO had jurisdiction to issue the enforcement and monetary penalty notices. It held that Clearview’s processing fell within the territorial scope of the GDPR/UK GDPR, and interpreted Article 2(2)(a) and Article 3(2)(b) broadly enough to capture the company’s facial-recognition database operations.

• Parties: Information Commissioner v Clearview AI Incorporated; Privacy International intervened.
• Holding: appeal allowed; FTT decision set aside and remitted; ICO treated as having jurisdiction to issue the notices.
• Article 2(2)(a): exclusion for activities outside Union law is narrow and does not extend to Clearview’s processing on the Tribunal’s reading.

The Governing Body of a School v M [2026] UKUT 161 (AAC) (24 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the school governing body’s appeal and held that the First-tier Tribunal had not made a material error of law in deciding to consider a disability discrimination claim that was brought about seven weeks out of time. The case concerned M’s claim on behalf of her son C, arising from the school’s fixed-term suspensions and permanent exclusion, and the tribunal also noted that the FTT had already found discrimination in relation to the permanent exclusion.

• Parties: The Governing Body of a School appealed against M, who was acting on behalf of her son C.
• Issue: Whether the FTT could consider a disability discrimination claim filed roughly seven weeks after the six-month deadline under Equality Act 2010 Schedule 17 paragraph 4(1).
• Holding: The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the FTT’s decision to exercise its discretion under Schedule 17 paragraph 4(3) to hear the late claim.

Southern Land Securities Ltd v Reynolds (LANDLORD AND TENANT - SERVICE CHARGES - evidence) [2026] UKUT 84 (LC) (23 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed Southern Land Securities Ltd’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s treatment of evidence on service charges for external redecoration works at Elmwood Road. It held that the FTT had relied on Ms Reynolds’ evidence as “uncontested” and disallowed almost all of the redecoration cost on a limited evidential basis, without proper reference to the landlord’s written case or inspection evidence.

• Parties: Southern Land Securities Ltd (freeholder/landlord) v Zelda Reynolds (leaseholder/tenant).
• Issue: whether the FTT fairly and justly assessed evidence on the recoverability of service charges under section 19(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and section 27A.
• Holding: appeal allowed; the FTT’s disallowance of most redecoration costs was not sustainable on the evidence described in the decision.

Sokal v Information Commissioner & Anor [2026] UKUT 177 (AAC) (01 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed Alan Sokal’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s FOIA decision concerning disclosure of a University of Essex report by Akua Reindorf KC. It held that the First-tier Tribunal had not made an error of law in upholding the University’s reliance on FOIA exemptions, including sections 41, 40(2) and 36(2)(b)(ii)/(c).

• Parties: Alan Sokal v Information Commissioner and University of Essex.
• Request sought an unredacted copy of a report on the cancellation of a Centre for Criminology seminar and speaker-invitation issues tied to Trans Rights, Imprisonment and the Criminal Justice System and Holocaust Memorial Week.
• University refused disclosure relying on FOIA sections 41(1), 40(2), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c); the Information Commissioner agreed.

SK v Disclosure and Barring Service [2026] UKUT 179 (AAC) (05 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed SK’s appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision to place her on the Adults’ Barred List under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It held that the DBS had not made any mistake of law or any material mistake of fact in concluding that allegations of hitting, swearing at, and neglecting a vulnerable adult were proved and that barring was appropriate and proportionate.

• Parties: SK appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
• Context: SK worked as a care assistant in a care home for vulnerable adults; the allegation came from colleague MN regarding treatment of BM, a vulnerable 93-year-old service user.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; DBS decision of 21 November 2024 to place SK on the Adults’ Barred List stood.

Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs; Dalston Projects Ltd & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] UKSC 30 (29 July 2025)

The Supreme Court heard two linked appeals about UK sanctions measures imposed under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as amended, including Eugene Shvidler’s designation and the detention of Dalston Projects Ltd’s yacht, the Phi. The judgment explains that the appeals turn on the proportionality of sanctions under Convention rights and also addresses the proper approach for first-instance and appellate courts when reviewing such executive decisions, as well as separate issues in the Dalston Projects case about the grounds for detention and conversion.

• Shvidler was designated by the Foreign Secretary on 24 March 2022, with worldwide asset-freezing and criminal prohibitions on dealing with him, subject to exceptions.
• Dalston Projects Ltd’s yacht, the Phi, was detained by the Transport Secretary from 28 March 2022, preventing its use and alleged charter income.
• The Court says the central issue is whether the sanctions’ interference with rights under article 8 and A1P1 is proportionate to the aim of pressure on Russia to end its war against Ukraine.

SELISHCHEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 39056/22 (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Third Section) [2025] ECHR 126 (27 May 2025)

The European Court of Human Rights examined complaints by ten Russian nationals who were refused registration as municipal election candidates after police information was used to treat them as having been "involved" with organisations later designated extremist. The judgment held that the collection and storage of their political data, and the use of that data to bar candidacy, lacked a clear legal framework and sufficient safeguards, and that the interference was not in accordance with law or necessary in a democratic society.

• Applicants: ten Russian nationals, all denied registration as candidates in the Berdsk municipal elections.
• Article 8 holding: collection and storage of political data shared with electoral authorities violated private-life rights because the framework was ad hoc, opaque, and lacked access, challenge, retention, deletion, and independent review safeguards.
• Reasoning on surveillance/data use: the Court treated the political data as sensitive and noted a chilling effect, with no violent conduct justifying surveillance and no clear rules on retention or deletion.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v E (Social Security Benefits - Bereavement support payment - Making a claim) [2026] UKUT 71 (AAC) (12 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal had made an error of law, set that decision aside, and remade the case by concluding that E did not qualify for bereavement support payment because her claim was out of time. It rejected the First-tier Tribunal’s reasoning that the Tell Us Once service had a duty to warn her about the benefit, that failure to do so was negligent or a reasonable-adjustment breach, and that the rules had to be read compatibly with the ECHR to permit an out-of-time claim.

• Parties: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v E; appeal concerned bereavement support payment after the death of E’s husband.
• Holding: the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal and restored the Secretary of State’s 2024 refusal of the claim.
• Reasoning: there is no compulsory obligation for the Tell Us Once service to advise people of a benefit claim, and it was not negligent not to do so.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Kolicaj [2025] UKSC 49 (18 December 2025)

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Secretary of State against the Court of Appeal in a case about the fairness of the British citizenship deprivation regime under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. The judgment explains how the deprivation process works, including notice, an order, and appeal rights to the First-tier Tribunal or SIAC, and situates the case alongside earlier Supreme Court authorities on deprivation appeals. The source text provided is truncated before the Court’s final holding is set out in full.

• Parties: Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mr Gjelosh Kolicaj.
• Issue: how fairness/natural justice is satisfied in deprivation of British citizenship under section 40 of the 1981 Act.
• Context: Mr Kolicaj was convicted of conspiracy to remove proceeds of criminal conduct from England; the judgment describes this as serious organised money laundering involving about £8 million.

Scott Brothers Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKUT 259 (TCC) (07 July 2026)

The Upper Tribunal considered Scott Brothers Limited’s renewed application for permission to appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to reinstate a withdrawn landfill tax appeal. It held that the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law and that its refusal to reinstate the appeal was not irrational or perverse, so permission to appeal was refused.

• Parties: Scott Brothers Limited v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
• Underlying dispute concerned HMRC assessments for landfill tax of £425,092 and a wrongdoing penalty of £148,782.20.
• The appeal had been withdrawn orally during the FTT hearing, and the company sought reinstatement within the tribunal’s stated 28-day period.

SAK v Disclosure and Barring Service (Finding of Fact) [2026] UKUT 26 (AAC) (19 January 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed SAK’s appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s 17 October 2023 decision to place her on the Adults’ Barred List. It found that the DBS’s barring decision involved mistakes of fact and directed the DBS to remove SAK from the list.

• Parties: SAK appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service over a barring decision made under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
• Holding: appeal allowed; the Tribunal directed removal from the Adults’ Barred List.
• Reasoning: the DBS’s decision was based on mistakes of fact.

SA v Disclosure and Barring Service [2026] UKUT 232 (AAC) (22 June 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed SA’s second appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision to keep him on the adults’ barred list, finding mistakes of law and fact in DBS’s new decision. It held that DBS had departed from binding findings made by the first Upper Tribunal and had also made unsupported additional findings, but it remitted the matter back to DBS for a fresh decision rather than ordering removal from the barred list itself.

• Parties: SA, a former healthcare assistant, v Disclosure and Barring Service; the case concerns retention on the adults’ barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
• Holding: appeal allowed; DBS’s decision was unlawful because it made mistakes of law and fact.
• Reasoning: where the Upper Tribunal directs DBS under s.4(7)(a) SVGA 2006, DBS is bound by the Tribunal’s findings of fact but may rely on additional facts; however, issue estoppel/Henderson v Henderson prevents re-litigation of issues already decided or that should have been raised.

Royal Sun and Alliance Insurance Ltd v London Borough of Harrow (COMPENSATION - COSTS - whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award costs in a reference for compensation under Regulation 24(8) and (9) of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations - whether compensation for injurious affection - rule 10, Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010) [2026] UKUT 197 (LC) (26 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) held that it had jurisdiction to award costs in a compensation reference under Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012. It treated the claim as proceedings for "injurious affection of land" within rule 10(6)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 and ordered the compensating authority to bear the claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.

• Parties: Royal Sun and Alliance Insurance Limited v London Borough of Harrow.
• Issue: whether costs could be awarded in a TPO compensation reference under Regulation 24(8) and (9).
• Holding: yes; the Tribunal found jurisdiction under rule 10(6)(b) because the claim fell within proceedings for injurious affection of land.

ROA v Secretary of State for Defence (Veterans UK) [2026] UKUT 160 (AAC) (21 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed ROA’s appeal against a First-tier Tribunal decision that had dismissed her claim for an award under the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006. It held that the First-tier Tribunal made an error of law because it gave insufficient findings of fact and inadequate reasons when resolving conflicting medical evidence about whether the appellant’s hearing loss was attributable to service. The case was set aside and remitted to a freshly constituted First-tier Tribunal for an oral redetermination.

• Parties: ROA appealed against the Secretary of State for Defence (Veterans UK) on a war pensions claim.
• Holding: appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
• Reasoning: the tribunal relied on only one stated reason—the time gap between service and onset of hearing loss—without adequate findings of fact or explanation.

Revenue and Customs v Electric Mobility Euro Ltd & Anor (Discovery assessments - extended time limit assessments - penalty for inaccuracy in a return - deliberate inaccuracy - whether deliberate inaccuracy necessarily involves dishonesty - whether HMRC required to specifically plead and prove dishonesty - whether the FTT erred in failing to explain how the appellant's conduct might not involve dishonesty) [2026] UKUT 37 (TCC) (28 January 2026)

The Upper Tribunal appeal concerned HMRC’s challenge to an FtT decision that had classified imported mobility scooters and parts under CN heading 8713 as vehicles for disabled persons, rather than heading 8703 as motor vehicles for transporting persons. The source text shows the Tribunal framed the dispute around objective design features, the effect of the 2009 Regulation, and whether the scooters were intended solely for persons with a non-marginal limit on walking ability, but the provided text is truncated before the Upper Tribunal’s final disposal of the appeal is visible.

• Parties: HMRC v Electric Mobility Euro Ltd and Sunrise Medical Ltd, over C18 post-clearance demands and customs reclaim for mobility scooters
• Core issue: customs classification under the Combined Nomenclature — heading 8703 (dutiable) versus heading 8713 (duty-free)
• FtT found the scooters’ objective characteristics showed they were designed for persons with a non-marginal limit on their ability to walk and intended solely for that group

RB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2026] UKUT 136 (AAC) (25 March 2026)

The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the Secretary of State was entitled to supersede the appellant’s Universal Credit award from 22 May 2020. It held that the appellant’s domestic appeal rights were exhausted on that date, his section 3C leave ended then, and his later ECtHR application and further human-rights submissions did not extend or revive that leave.

• Parties: RB appealed against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; the case was about Universal Credit entitlement after deportation-related immigration action.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; no error of law in the First-tier Tribunal decision.
• Reasoning: section 104 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 confines “pending” appeals to the domestic appellate system, so ECtHR proceedings could not keep section 3C leave alive.

RB v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] UKUT 117 (AAC) (12 March 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed RB’s appeal against the Pensions Appeal Tribunal’s 4 February 2025 decision and set that decision aside for error of law. It held that the tribunal had wrongly treated the matter only as an entitlement appeal under section 1 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943, when it also raised a section 5 assessment appeal about the maintained 40% disablement assessment and alleged deterioration of accepted conditions.

• Parties: RB v Secretary of State for Defence (Veterans UK)
• Holding: appeal allowed; Pensions Appeal Tribunal decision set aside and remitted to a fresh tribunal with no findings preserved
• Reasoning: the 20 June 2024 decision was partly a review of an existing assessment, and the notice of appeal/case clearly raised deterioration and degree-of-disablement issues

Rangecourt SA & Ors v Financial Conduct Authority (FINANCIAL SERVICES - whether firm failed to conduct its business with integrity - whether director and employees lacked integrity in preparing a document describing a strategy of market manipulation - whether part of the firm's business - whether conduct of the individuals could be attributed to the firm) [2026] UKUT 47 (TCC) (03 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal considered references against FCA Decision Notices arising from a 2017 document that all parties agreed was wholly improper and that purported to describe a market-manipulation strategy to pressure the Qatari currency. The case addressed whether Rangecourt SA (formerly Banque Havilland), Mr Edmund Lloyd Rowland, and Mr Vladimir Bolelyy had acted without integrity, whether the conduct could be attributed to the firm, and whether the FCA’s penalties and prohibition orders were justified.

• Parties: Rangecourt SA (formerly Banque Havilland), Edmund Lloyd Rowland, Vladimir Bolelyy, and the FCA; David John Rowland was a third-party rights applicant.
• Core issue: a 2017 document described a strategy of market manipulation aimed at the Qatari Riyal and was said by the FCA to have been used to market the bank to Mubadala Investment Company.
• The bank disputed that the conduct engaged Principle 1 or was part of its business; Mr Rowland and Mr Bolelyy disputed allegations of lack of integrity and fit-and-proper findings.

R v McCafferty & Ors [2026] UKSC 20 (14 July 2026)

The Supreme Court considered whether section 78(1)(b)(ii) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 covers obstruction of access to private business premises reached by a private road. It held that the public at large does not have a right to enter or leave private premises merely because employees, customers, or suppliers may do so, so the second limb of the offence was not engaged on the facts described.

• Parties: R (Respondent) v McCafferty and others (Appellants); appeal from [2025] EWCA Crim 748.
• Issue: whether access to and egress from private business premises is a 'right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large' under section 78(1)(b)(ii).
• Holding: no; a private road and private premises are distinguished from highways because the public at large has no general right to use them.

R (SP) v The First-tier Tribunal [2026] UKUT 221 (AAC) (11 June 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed SP’s judicial review of the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to reopen her Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme award under paragraph 115(b) of the 2012 Scheme. It held that the FtT had erred by not expressly finding whether her condition had become permanent, but the error was not material because the evidence did not support permanence or the higher tariff level needed for an increased award. The Tribunal also found no procedural unfairness in the FtT’s decision not to seek further medical evidence.

• Applicant: SP; Interested Party: the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; judicial review of a FtT decision in a criminal injuries compensation case.
• Core issue: whether there had been a “material change” in SP’s medical condition allowing reopening under paragraph 115(b) of the 2012 Scheme.
• FtT had found no material change between acceptance of the September 2022 award and the June 2023 reopening request.

Queenscourt Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - whether dip pots supplied as part of a takeaway meal deal are a separate zero rated supply or whether they are part of a composite standard rated supply alongside the hot food in the relevant meal deal)[2026] UKUT 195 (TCC) (19 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal heard Queenscourt Ltd’s appeal over VAT treatment of dip pots supplied in KFC takeaway meal deals, and over whether HMRC could recover VAT previously repaid after changing its position. It allowed the appeal in the sense recorded in the neutral citation, but the source text provided does not include the Tribunal’s final substantive conclusions beyond the issues framed and the FTT’s prior holdings.

• Parties: Queenscourt Ltd appealed against HMRC; the dispute concerned dip pots in takeaway meal deals and HMRC’s recovery of VAT repaid under an earlier error correction notice.
• Holding below: the FTT had held dip pots were part of a single standard-rated supply with the hot food, and that it had jurisdiction to consider legitimate expectation, though HMRC was not prevented from recovering the VAT.
• Issues on appeal: whether the dip pots were a separate zero-rated supply or ancillary to the hot food under a composite standard-rated supply; and whether the FTT had jurisdiction over legitimate expectation arguments in an appeal under s 83(1)(t) VATA against a s 80(4A) recovery assessment.

Paterson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (CLAIMS AND PAYMENTS - UNIVERSAL CREDIT) [2026] UKUT 147 (AAC) (13 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed Mr Paterson’s appeal, held that the First-tier Tribunal had made an error of law, set its decision aside, and remitted the case for a fresh oral hearing. The dispute was whether his universal credit claim date could be treated as the earlier date when he telephoned the DWP helpline, rather than the later date when he completed an electronic claim with Jobcentre assistance.

• Parties: Martin Paterson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; appeal concerned universal credit claim dating/backdating.
• Holding: FTT erred by not making necessary factual findings on whether the telephone call was a valid claim under regulations 8 and 10.
• Alternative holding: even if the electronic claim was the first valid claim, FTT failed to find when the claimant first notified the need for assistance.

NXP and NAN, R (on the application of) [2026] UKUT 192 (24 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal held that judicial review challenges to age assessment decisions made by a “designated person” under sections 50 and 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 fall within the Transfer Direction and therefore must be brought in the Tribunal. It also held that the proper respondent in such challenges is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that where interim relief is sought the local authority to whom any order is directed should be named and served as an interested party.

• Applicants: NXP (Vietnam) and NAN (Afghanistan), both disputing age assessments by NAAB-designated persons; NAN’s case also involved Hertfordshire County Council as interested party.
• Holding 1: age-assessment JR under sections 50/51 NABA 2022 is within paragraph 1(i) of the Transfer Direction and must be brought in the Upper Tribunal.
• Holding 2: the appropriate respondent is the Secretary of State for the Home Department, not NAAB or other nomenclature.

NNM v Disclosure and Barring Service (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups - proportionality) [2026] UKUT 3 (AAC) (31 December 2025)

The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) considered NNM’s appeal against DBS’s inclusion of him in the children’s barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It held that DBS had not made a mistake of law or fact and confirmed the decision, finding the barring decision proportionate on the basis that NNM’s attitudes and parenting style could affect his ability to recognise safeguarding issues and work collaboratively in regulated activity as a teacher.

• Parties: NNM appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
• Holding: DBS’s inclusion of NNM in the children’s barred list was confirmed; the tribunal found no legal or factual mistake.
• Reasoning: DBS relied on findings of poor parenting, physical abuse, exposure of the child to domestic violence, and failure to meet emotional needs, not on repetition of that conduct with pupils.

Nielson v Revenue and Customs () [2026] UKUT 193 (TCC) (18 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal considered Michael Nielson’s renewed application for permission to appeal against an FTT decision concerning whether he had successfully amended his 2007/2008 self-assessment return. Judge Vimal Tilakapala refused permission, holding that no arguable error of law had been identified in the FTT’s treatment of the corrective action form, the closure notice, or the tribunal’s case-management and evidential conclusions.

• Parties: Michael Nielson v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
• Context: the dispute arose in connection with a tax avoidance scheme, an Accelerated Payment Notice, and a Follower Notice under Part 4 of the Finance Act 2014.
• Holding: permission to appeal was refused because the applicant did not show an arguable error of law in the FTT decision.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health Board v Revenue and Customs (VALUE ADDED TAX - zero rating - construction services - item 2 Group 5 Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994) [2026] UKUT 258 (TCC) (07 July 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health Board’s appeal over VAT zero-rating for construction services used to build the Bedroom Wing at the National Secure Adolescent Inpatient Service. It held that the wing was not intended for use solely for a “relevant residential purpose” under item 2, Group 5, Schedule 8 VATA 1994, so the construction services could not be zero-rated.

• Parties: NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health Board v HMRC before the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).
• Issue: whether construction services for an accommodation/bedroom wing in a secure inpatient mental health facility qualified for VAT zero-rating.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; the Bedroom Wing was not intended solely for a relevant residential purpose.

NEMYTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 1257/21 (No Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} : Third Section) [2025] ECHR 125 (27 May 2025)

The Court examined three applications against Russia arising from administrative arrests, detentions, and fines imposed for participation in public events and solo demonstrations during COVID-19 restrictions in 2020–2021. It held that several of the interferences with Articles 10 and 11 were not necessary in a democratic society because the domestic courts failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons or conduct a proportionality assessment, though it found one Article 10 conviction proportionate in the specific circumstances described in the summary heading.

• Applicants were Russian nationals prosecuted in administrative-offence proceedings for public events or solo demonstrations during regional COVID-19-related bans and restrictions.
• The Court found violations where detention/fines were imposed without a proper proportionality assessment and noted the sanctions were capable of a "chilling effect."
• The Court said the authorities overstepped their wide margin of appreciation in the cases involving public-event restrictions tied to COVID-19 measures.

Mujaj (Deprivation: children's best interests) Albania [2025] UKUT 349 (IAC) (25 July 2025)

The Upper Tribunal remade the deprivation appeals of Flamur Mujaj and Ermira Mujaj, both Albanian-born adults who had obtained British citizenship in false identities, and addressed how the best interests of their children had to be assessed in that context. It set out a six-step approach for deprivation appeals involving children, distinguishing between issues governed by public-law review of the Secretary of State’s section 55 duty and issues the tribunal must decide for itself under article 8.

• Parties: Flamur Mujaj and Ermira Mujaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department; both appellants were deprived of British citizenship for obtaining it by deception.
• Holding: the tribunal stated the correct method for assessing children’s best interests in deprivation appeals, including when to review the Secretary of State’s section 55 compliance and when to make independent findings.
• Reasoning: section 55 is mainly relevant to discretion and article 8; the tribunal must identify the respondent’s reasons, assess materiality of any section 55 error, and separately determine the best interests of any relevant child as a primary consideration.

MT v Governing Body of a School (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS) [2026] UKUT 42 (AAC) (27 January 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed MT’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s dismissal of disability discrimination claims brought on behalf of her son, C, concerning the school’s decision to move him from one site to another. It set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision for multiple errors of law and remitted all claims for rehearing by a fresh tribunal.

• Parties: MT v Governing Body of a School; claims were brought under sections 15, 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 for C, MT’s son.
• Holding: appeal allowed; First-tier Tribunal decision set aside in full; all claims remitted to a fresh First-tier Tribunal.
• Late evidence: the Upper Tribunal said the FTT had broadly applied the correct principles in refusing late evidence, but had to consider the overriding objective and Denton factors.

MK v Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups - fairness of DBS decision making) [2026] UKUT 159 (AAC) (04 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed MK’s appeal and confirmed DBS’s 8 March 2021 barring decision under section 4(2) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It held that DBS did not make an error of law or mistake of fact, and specifically that the barring decision was not unfair because DBS did not give MK a further opportunity to provide supporting medical evidence of improved mental health.

• Parties: MK appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) in the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber).
• Holding: appeal dismissed; DBS’s barring decision was confirmed.
• Reasoning: the tribunal accepted that DBS had considered MK’s mental health evidence and representations, including a letter from her care co-ordinator, and was not obliged to seek further medical evidence.

Lions Logistics Ltd v Compas75 Ltd (Transport - Traffic Commissioner and DoE (NI) Appeals - Other) [2026] UKUT 66 (AAC) (10 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed Lions Logistics Ltd’s appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal to review a decision granting Compas75 Ltd’s licence variation. It held that the Commissioner was entitled to treat Lions as a person with an interest for the purposes of section 36 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, but that there was no breach of a procedural requirement that would justify review.

• Parties: Lions Logistics Ltd appealed; Compas75 Ltd was the licence-holder whose variation was granted.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; the review refusal stood.
• Section 36(2): the Traffic Commissioner had discretion to decide whether the appellant was a person with an interest, requiring a specific interest beyond the public generally.

Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd and others [2026] UKSC 2 (21 January 2026)

The Supreme Court in Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd and others addressed whether the claimant’s negligence claims, arising out of his killing of three men while suffering from psychotic illness, were barred by the doctrine of illegality. The source text frames the case as a strike-out/summary judgment appeal on that threshold issue, with the claimant also having pleaded Human Rights Act claims that were not pursued on this illegality appeal.

• Parties: Alexander Lewis-Ranwell sued G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd, Devon Partnership NHS Trust, Devon County Council, and the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police.
• Core claim: he sought damages for alleged negligent failure to assess/treat him before the killings, plus losses linked to detention, imprisonment, and future detention.
• Procedural posture: G4S, the NHS Trust, and Devon CC applied to strike out the negligence claim as barred by illegality; the Chief Constable did not join that application.

L Rowland & Co (Retail) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE - case management decision - directions requiring additional evidence from witnesses and further and better particulars - witness summonses of its own initiative - FTT's jurisdiction to make the directions - proper exercise of case management discretion) [2026] UKUT 130 (TCC) (19 March 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed Rowlands’ appeal against a First-tier Tribunal case management decision in a tax/NIC dispute about the employment status of approximately 1,400 locum pharmacists. The FTT had directed that each party identify sample locum witnesses, contemplated witness summonses on its own initiative, and ordered HMRC to provide further and better particulars on the employment-status issue; the UT held the FTT had not exercised its case management discretion properly.

• Parties: L Rowland & Co (Retail) Ltd challenged HMRC assessments and decisions relating to PAYE income tax and NIC for 2015/16 to 2017/18.
• Core issue: whether locum pharmacists were self-employed, as Rowlands contended, or employees, as HMRC contended.
• FTT directions: sample locum witnesses were to be selected, with possible witness summonses issued by the Tribunal, and HMRC had to provide further and better particulars on the Ready Mixed Concrete third-stage inquiry.

KTS v Governing Body of Milby Primary School [2026] UKUT 41 (AAC) (27 January 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to vary a rule 14 reporting restriction order and also allowed the application to vary the Upper Tribunal’s own order. It held that the earlier decision involved an error of law and remade the order so that the governing body and the school could be named, while maintaining anonymity for the child and other children.

• Parties: KTS, the parents of a child with autism and an EHC plan, v the Governing Body of Milby Primary School.
• Holding: the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to vary the order, and varied the rule 14 order in the same terms for both tribunals.
• Reasoning: it addressed the proper use of rule 14 orders in SEND disability discrimination cases, stressing the relationship between open justice and anonymity in the tribunal context.

KJB Scaffolding Ltd & Anor [2026] UKUT 190 (AAC) (12 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal by KJB Scaffolding Limited and Mr Kane Towers against a Traffic Commissioner’s decision revoking the company’s restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence and disqualifying Mr Towers for one year. It held that the appellants had not shown procedural unfairness or disproportionality, and that the Traffic Commissioner’s material factual findings were not plainly wrong.

• Parties: KJB Scaffolding Limited and its sole director, Mr Kane Towers, appealed a Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision.
• Holding: the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the revocation and one-year disqualification to take effect one month after the UT decision.
• Reasoning: it rejected the grounds of procedural unfairness, disproportionality, and challenge to factual findings.

KH, R (on the application of) v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (Criminal Injuries Compensation) (CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION: reduction and withholding of awards) [2026] UKUT 39 (AAC) (28 January 2026)

The Upper Tribunal quashed the First-tier Tribunal’s decision upholding CICA’s withholding of a criminal injuries compensation award under paragraph 25 of the 2012 Scheme. It held that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by refusing to consider CCTV evidence in breach of the overriding objective, and by making inadequate and perverse findings of fact, and remitted the case for a fresh oral rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

• Applicant: KH; respondents: First-Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) and CICA as interested party.
• CICA had withheld an award under paragraph 25 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 because of the applicant’s conduct during the incident.
• Upper Tribunal found legal error in the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to admit short, relevant CCTV evidence brought to the hearing.

Kession Capital Ltd (in Liquidation) v KVB Consultants Ltd and others [2026] UKSC 11 (25 March 2026)

The judgment is a Supreme Court appeal about the scope of an authorised person’s responsibility under section 39 FSMA for activities carried on by an appointed representative. It concerns Kession Capital Ltd, in liquidation, and KVB Consultants Ltd and others, and arises from an appointed representative agreement that limited the representative to non-retail clients and specified regulated activities.

• Kession Capital Ltd (in liquidation) was the appellant; KVB Consultants Ltd and others were the respondents.
• The appeal concerns FSMA section 39 and the extent to which a principal is responsible for an appointed representative’s activities.
• The Court explains the statutory framework: authorised persons, Part 4A permissions, appointed representatives, and the consequences of acting outside permission.

KCN v Disclosure and Barring Service (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups) [2026] UKUT 56 (AAC) (05 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal considered KCN’s appeal against DBS inclusion of him in both the children’s and adults’ barred lists under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It held that DBS had not made any mistake of law or fact and confirmed DBS’s decision, notwithstanding KCN’s Crown Court acquittal on the criminal charges arising from the same allegations.

• Parties: KCN appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service; the case was heard in the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber).
• Holding: DBS’s decision to include KCN in the children’s barred list and adults’ barred list was confirmed.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal accepted that DBS could find the underlying allegation proved on the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) even though KCN had been acquitted in the Crown Court.

Kapadia & Ors v The Church Commissioners for England (LANDLORD AND TENANT - SERVICE CHARGES - interpretation of lease) [2026] UKUT 220 (LC) (17 June 2026)

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) heard an appeal about service charges on the Church Commissioners’ Water Gardens Estate and addressed four live issues arising under the leases. It allowed the appeal in part, including on the meaning of “the Surveyor” for interim service-charge estimates under the Type 1 leases, and it also considered whether a balancing charge could be based on accounts prepared to a different year end, whether an implied term should vary fixed percentages, and whether legal fees in leaseholder disputes were recoverable through service charge.

• Parties: Deepesh Kapadia and four other leaseholders appealed against The Church Commissioners for England.
• Issue 1: whether interim service charges under Type 1 leases were valid when the estimate was made by Knight Frank managing agent William Bell rather than a person formally shown to be “the Surveyor”.
• The decision records the FTT had rejected the leaseholders’ argument and treated “surveyor” as not limited to a professionally qualified person, but the appeal challenged that construction.

Jwanczuk, R. (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2025] UKSC 42 (20 November 2025)

The Supreme Court heard an appeal about whether the Bereavement Support Payment contribution condition unlawfully discriminated against a surviving spouse where the deceased had been unable to work because of severe disability. The judgment also addressed the proper approach for courts in England and Wales when deciding whether to follow a decision of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal on identical legislation.

• Parties: R (on the application of Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; the respondent had been refused BSP after his wife died without having paid the required contributions.
• Main issue: whether section 31(1) of the Pensions Act 2014 unlawfully discriminated under article 14 read with A1P1, and whether the statute could be read to disapply the contribution condition in cases of disability.
• The judgment explains that BSP is a non-means-tested contributory benefit, payable only if the deceased met the contribution condition, and that the respondent lost the claim because his wife had never worked or paid contributions.

JR v Disclosure and Barring Service [2025] UKUT 392 (AAC) (21 November 2025)

The Upper Tribunal refused JR’s application for costs arising from a DBS barring decision under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. The Tribunal recorded that DBS had later reviewed and removed JR from both barred lists, making the appeal academic, but held that the costs application failed because no basis for a costs order was made out under the Tribunal rules and the respondent had not acted unreasonably.

• Parties: JR v Disclosure and Barring Service; application concerned DBS’s 22 March 2024 decision to include JR on the Adults’ Barred List and Children’s Barred List.
• Holding: application for costs refused.
• Procedural posture: DBS reviewed its barring decision under paragraph 18A of Schedule 3 to the 2006 Act and removed JR’s name from both barred lists on 17 June 2025; the appeal was then struck out as academic.

JR v Disclosure and Barring Service (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups - proportionality) [2025] UKUT 400 (AAC) (03 December 2025)

The Upper Tribunal allowed JR’s appeal against DBS’s decision to keep him on the adults’ barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It held that the statutory test for regulated activity was satisfied, but that including him on the adults’ barred list was disproportionate, and it directed DBS to remove him from that list.

• Parties: JR appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
• Holding: DBS had made a mistake in law; the Tribunal ordered JR removed from the adults’ barred list.
• Reasoning: JR’s prior work with vulnerable adults was short, historic (2012–2013), and stop-gap only; he had not worked or volunteered with vulnerable adults since and said he had no intention to do so.

JG v Disclosure and Barring Service (Finding of Fact) [2026] UKUT 131 (AAC) (19 March 2026)

The Upper Tribunal refused JG’s appeal and confirmed the Disclosure and Barring Service’s 27 April 2023 decision to place her on the Adults’ Barred List. It held that the DBS decision did not involve a mistake of fact on which it was based, and did not involve any material error of law.

• Parties: JG appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service over a barring decision under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
• Holding: appeal refused; DBS decision confirmed.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal found no mistake of fact and no material error of law in the DBS’s findings.

Javaid v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKUT 261 (TCC) (08 July 2026)

The Upper Tribunal considered Mr Javaid’s application for permission to appeal against the FTT’s refusal to set aside HMRC’s Personal Liability Notices, which had attributed 100% of three Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 penalties to him. The new appeal point argued that paragraph 19 should be read compatibly with A1P1 ECHR so that the attributed amount was proportionate, but the Tribunal held the point could not be determined on the existing facts and refused permission.

• Applicant: Kashif Javaid; respondent: HMRC; context was Personal Liability Notices under paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007.
• FTT had upheld three PLNs totalling £3,212,815, attributing company VAT penalty liabilities to Mr Javaid as an officer responsible for deliberate inaccuracies.
• Proposed ground relied on HRA 1998 s3 and A1P1 ECHR, arguing an attribution cap should be read into paragraph 19 and that the proportionate amount was nil.

HZ v Disclosure & Barring Service (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups - Children's Barred List - Adults' Barred List) [2025] UKUT 416 (AAC) (12 December 2025)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed HZ’s appeal in part and allowed it in part. It upheld the Disclosure and Barring Service decision to keep her on the Adults’ Barred List, but found an error of fact and law in her inclusion on the Children’s Barred List and directed her removal from that list.

• Parties: HZ v Disclosure & Barring Service; appeal under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
• Holding: Adults’ Barred List inclusion confirmed; Children’s Barred List inclusion quashed/directed for removal
• Reasoning: no mistake of fact or law as to relevant conduct involving a vulnerable adult; mistake of fact and law as to the children’s list

Hosie v Revenue and Customs (Application for permission to appeal) [2025] UKUT 432 (TCC) (30 December 2025)

The Upper Tribunal heard Mr Derek Hosie’s renewed application for permission to appeal against an FTT decision about reinstating an appeal that he had previously withdrawn. The Tribunal explained the statutory permission-to-appeal test, focused on whether the FTT had arguably erred in law on jurisdiction to extend time after withdrawal, and held that much of Mr Hosie’s fraud-based and authorities-based argument did not bear on the FTT’s actual jurisdictional decision.

• Applicant: Derek Hosie; respondent: HMRC Commissioners
• Underlying FTT case concerned a closure notice and repayment following a false EIS relief claim in Mr Hosie’s 2016/17 self-assessment return
• FTT had refused to reinstate the withdrawn appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the reinstatement application was out of time under s54(4) TMA 1970

Harron v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (INFORMATION RIGHTS - practice and procedure) [2026] UKUT 48 (AAC) (02 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed Mr Harron’s appeal and held that the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law when it refused to certify contempt under section 61 of FOIA. The tribunal accepted that RMBC had complied with the substituted decision notice by issuing a fresh response without relying on section 14, and said that any dispute about whether that fresh response was substantively correct belonged in a section 50 complaint to the Information Commissioner, not in contempt proceedings.

• Parties: Liam Harron v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council; Information Commissioner joined as interested party
• Holding: appeal dismissed; no error of law in refusing contempt certification under FOIA section 61
• Reasoning: contempt requires non-compliance with the substituted decision notice itself, not disagreement with the adequacy of the new response

Gurung & Others (Gurkhas, historic injustice, Article 8) Nepal [2026] UKUT 191 (08 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal considered appeals by Maya Gurung, Rajesh Gurung and Rajani Gurung against refusal of leave to enter the UK, in a case turning on Article 8 family life and the claimed historic injustice to Gurkha veterans. It held that in such cases the tribunal should first ask whether Article 8(1) family life exists, then whether there is a causal "but for" link between the historic injustice and the appellants' situation, and then conduct a proportionality assessment under Article 8(2).

• Parties: three Gurung appellants v Entry Clearance Officer; the claim was based on family life with a mother and son resident in the UK
• Holding: the tribunal set out the correct three-stage approach for historic-injustice Article 8 cases involving Gurkha families
• Reasoning: it requires an "additional elements of dependency test" for Article 8(1), then a causation inquiry, then a proportionality balance

GOOGLE LLC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 37027/22 (Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} : Third Section) [2025] ECHR 170 (08 July 2025)

The European Court of Human Rights held that Russia violated Article 10, and also found Article 6 § 1 problems, in proceedings where Russian authorities imposed large fines on Google companies for refusing take-down requests and for suspending a Russian television channel’s YouTube account. The Court found the fines and enforcement measures were disproportionate, lacked adequate judicial scrutiny, and exerted pressure to censor content, including political speech and reporting on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

• Applicants were four Google companies, including Google LLC, Google Russia, Google International LLC, and Google Ireland Limited.
• Article 10: substantial fines for failing to remove YouTube content were not 'necessary in a democratic society' and had a chilling effect.
• The impugned takedown demands covered political opposition, criticism of the Russian government, war reporting, and LGBTQ-support content.

Fletcher & Anor v Portsmouth City Council (HOUSING - HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION - whether licence conditions appropriate) [2026] UKUT 234 (LC) (26 June 2026)

The Upper Tribunal heard an appeal by Simon and Iva Fletcher against Portsmouth City Council over the appropriateness of HMO licence conditions imposed at 1 Sheffield Road, Portsmouth, and considered six grounds challenging those conditions. It reviewed the statutory framework under the Housing Act 2004, the First-tier Tribunal’s approach, and the Council’s use of standard form conditions applied across Portsmouth.

• Parties: Simon and Iva Fletcher v Portsmouth City Council; dispute concerned HMO licence conditions for 1 Sheffield Road, Portsmouth.
• Issue: whether the licence conditions were appropriate under section 67 of the Housing Act 2004, including the relationship with mandatory conditions in Schedule 4.
• The Tribunal set out the appeal approach from Hussain: the FTT must decide whether the licensing decision was wrong at the time, giving the authority due deference.

Fenech & Anor v The Financial Conduct Authority (FINANCIAL SERVICES - transfers from defined benefit schemes to defined contribution schemes - Decision Notices issued on basis that advice not suitable or compliant) [2026] UKUT 162 (TCC) (27 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed the references in part after independently reviewing a 16-file sample of Ms Dunne’s pension-transfer advice and related evidence. It found that 10 of the 16 sampled cases involved suitable advice and 6 involved unsuitable advice, but also identified multiple compliance failings and concluded that Ms Dunne breached Statement of Principle 2; the Tribunal also found breaches connected to the transfer-in-isolation model and to the backdated appointed-representative agreement issues described in the decision notice summary.

• Parties: Richard Brian Fenech and Heather Imogen Dunne v the Financial Conduct Authority.
• Core dispute: FCA Decision Notices imposed penalties and prohibition orders over DB-to-DC pension transfer advice, supervision failings, and allegedly dishonest provision of a backdated AR agreement.
• Holding on sample: Tribunal found 10/16 sampled files showed suitable advice and 6/16 unsuitable advice; extrapolation from the sample supported at least 18% of clients receiving unsuitable advice.

Fenech & Anor v Financial Conduct Authority (PROCEDURE - expert report - whether witness was an expert - whether witness conflicted - unfair to admit as expert evidence - whether evidence of fact - if so, whether to admit after the time limit) [2026] UKUT 20 (TCC) (19 January 2026)

The Upper Tribunal resolved a procedural dispute in references brought by Richard Brian Fenech and Heather Imogen Dunne against Financial Conduct Authority decision notices imposing financial penalties and prohibition orders. It held that Rebecca Prestage was an expert but conflicted, so her statement was unfair to admit as expert evidence; however, it admitted the same statement late as evidence of fact in the interests of justice.

• Parties: Fenech and Dunne challenged FCA decision notices; the FCA relied on a statement from Ms Rebecca Prestage.
• Holding: Ms Prestage was an expert, but conflicted; the Statement could not fairly be admitted as expert evidence.
• Holding: although late under the tribunal directions, the Statement was admitted as evidence of fact.

Farfan v Information Commissioner & Anor (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - right of access) [2026] UKUT 16 (AAC) (12 January 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal and held that the First-tier Tribunal had made no error of law in concluding that the University of Central Lancashire did not hold the requested correspondence for FOIA purposes. The Tribunal set out that the key question under section 3(2)(a) is not merely whether information is physically on a public authority’s systems, but whether it is held on the authority’s own behalf or solely on behalf of someone else.

• Parties: Dr Jesús Antonio Siller Farfán appealed against the Information Commissioner and the Governing Body of the University of Central Lancashire.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; the University was entitled to withhold the information because it was not “held” by it within section 1(1) and section 3(2)(a) of FOIA.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal said separate consideration should be given to whether information is held and on whose behalf it is held; the relevant focus is the nature of the connection between the authority and the information.

Evans v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors [2025] UKSC 48 (18 December 2025)

The judgment concerns collective proceedings under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 and the choice between opt-in and opt-out procedure. The Supreme Court addresses the Tribunal’s gatekeeping discretion, including how the strength of the claim and practicability of opt-in proceedings should be weighed, in the context of FX cartel follow-on damages claims based on European Commission settlement decisions.

• Parties: Evans sought to bring collective proceedings against Barclays Bank Plc and others following Commission findings of FX spot-trading infringements.
• Holding/theme: the appeal concerns whether the Competition Appeal Tribunal was entitled to refuse opt-out collective proceedings and how much weight it could give to the pleaded strength of the claim.
• Reasoning focus: the Tribunal treated the claim as very weak and thought opt-in proceedings were practicable; the Court of Appeal disagreed and remitted the case.

DWH v Disclosure & Barring Service (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups) [2025] UKUT 417 (AAC) (12 December 2025)

The Upper Tribunal partly allowed DWH’s appeal against a DBS barring decision made on 22 July 2024. It confirmed his inclusion on the Adults’ Barred List, but found a mistake of fact and law in his inclusion on the Children’s Barred List and directed his removal from that list.

• Parties: DWH appealed against the Disclosure & Barring Service under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
• Holding: appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part; Adults’ Barred List inclusion confirmed, Children’s Barred List inclusion set aside.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal found no mistake of fact or law for adult barring, but did find such a mistake for child barring.

DERREK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 31712/21 (Art 3 (substantive and procedural) (+ Art 14) - Degrading treatment - Discrimination : Third Section) [2025] ECHR 104 (29 April 2025)

The European Court of Human Rights found that the police raid on a venue hosting an LGBT workshop in Yaroslavl, the personal searches, and the ensuing mandatory drug testing engaged Article 3 and Article 14, and that the applicants were also denied an effective remedy under Article 13. The judgment also records a violation of Article 5 § 1 and Article 11, and it attributes the treatment to wilful humiliation and debasement motivated by homophobic hatred, alongside an ineffective domestic investigation.

• Applicants: six Russian nationals challenging a police raid on an LGBT workshop venue in Yaroslavl on 5 December 2020.
• Holding: violations found under Article 3 (substantive and procedural) with Article 14, Article 5 § 1, Article 11, and Article 13.
• Reasoning: the Court described the searches and mandatory hospital drug testing as degrading treatment, and said the investigation into police conduct was ineffective.

DB v Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust & Anor (Mental Health) [2026] UKUT 57 (AAC) (05 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed DB’s appeal in part, held that it was legally permissible for a restricted patient to be conditionally discharged while remaining in hospital on an informal basis, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, and remitted the case for rehearing by a differently constituted panel. The tribunal decided the case without a hearing after considering the papers and the Secretary of State’s policy on recall of conditionally discharged restricted patients.

• DB was a restricted patient under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983, recalled to hospital by the Secretary of State after conditional discharge.
• The First-tier Tribunal had refused discharge, reasoning that DB’s treatment could only be given if he remained detained and that informal hospital residence was not a permissible discharge option.
• Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs held that conditional discharge while remaining voluntarily in hospital was permissible, relying on section 131 and the explanation of 'discharge' in M v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] AC 712 at [20].

Cyngor Gwynedd v Jones & Anor (Meaning of "educational provision" in s.3 Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 - circumstances in which health care and social care provision is "educational provision" in that context [2026] UKUT 205 (AAC) (21 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed Cyngor Gwynedd’s appeal and remade the Education Tribunal for Wales’ decision by revoking paragraphs 3–5 of its order. The case was about whether a requirement that Hari be supported at school at all times by two suitably qualified and trained carers could properly be treated as Additional Learning Provision under the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018.

• Parties: Cyngor Gwynedd appealed against Mrs Ellen Jones and Mr Michael Jones, parents of Hari Jones.
• Holding: the appeal was allowed and the ETW order was remade by revoking paragraphs 3–5.
• Core issue: whether continuous support by two qualified and trained carers was ALP / “educational provision” under s.3 of the ALN Act.

Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs v BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP [2026] UKSC 18 (01 July 2026)

This Supreme Court judgment concerns the interpretation of the salaried members legislation in the Finance Act 2014 and whether certain members of BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP should be treated as employees rather than partners for income tax and NICs purposes. HMRC had made PAYE and Class 1 NIC determinations for tax years 2014 to 2019, and the appeal turns on Conditions A and B, with Condition C accepted to be met by all individual members.

• Parties: Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs v BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP.
• Issue: construction and application of the salaried members rules in ITTOIA 2005, sections 863A to 863G, as inserted by the Finance Act 2014.
• Context: HMRC treated all but four BlueCrest members as meeting the salaried members conditions and issued PAYE and NICs determinations of about £142m and £55.3m respectively.

COB v Disclosure and Barring Service (Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups) [2026] UKUT 188 (AAC) (09 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal heard COB’s appeal against DBS decisions to place her on both the children’s and adults’ barred lists under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. It held DBS had made no mistake of law or fact and confirmed the barring decision, concluding that the 2022 incidents alone justified inclusion and that the 2004 incident did not need to be relied on.

• Parties: COB appealed against the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
• Holding: the Tribunal confirmed DBS’s decision to include COB in both barred lists.
• Reasoning: it found no mistake of fact in DBS’s findings on the 2022 incidents and held barring on that basis was proportionate.

CLO v Bolsover District Council & Anor (Housing Benefit and payments that are eligible for HB) [2026] UKUT 166 (AAC) (27 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal had made a material error of law because its Decision Notice conflicted with its Statement of Reasons on whether the housing benefit overpayment was caused by official error. It set aside that decision, but on the facts as found it remade the case to refuse the appeal, confirm the council’s decision, and hold that CLO was not entitled to housing benefit from 31 October 2014 and must repay an overpayment of £27,480.96.

• Parties: CLO appealed against Bolsover District Council, with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions added as Second Respondent.
• Holding: FTT error of law due to inconsistency between decision notice and reasons; Upper Tribunal set aside and remade the case.
• Outcome: appeal refused; the council’s 21 November 2022 decision confirmed; overpayment held recoverable under regulation 81(1).

Cleasby v University of Exeter & Anor [2026] UKUT 187 (AAC) (08 May 2026)

The Upper Tribunal held that the University of Exeter was in contempt of court for failing to disclose information it had been ordered to produce by the First-tier Tribunal within 42 days of the 30 January 2024 decision. The University had eventually disclosed the information on 8 May 2025, admitted the earlier failure was contempt, and the UT imposed a £15,000 fine and ordered publication of the decision.

• Parties: Peter Cleasby v University of Exeter and the Information Commissioner; the dispute arose under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
• Holding: the University was in contempt of court for not complying with the FTT disclosure order by the deadline.
• Reasoning: the UT accepted the University’s concession of contempt and treated the delayed disclosure as serious because compliance came more than a year late.

Cham Wings Airlines v Council (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Syria - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ T-415/24 (24 September 2025)

The General Court addressed Cham Wings Airlines’ challenge to the Council’s 27 May 2024 maintenance of Syrian restrictive measures against it under the Syria sanctions regime. It rejected the airline’s plea on reasons and noted that the reasons given for listing it—ownership by Muhammad Issam Shammout and alleged use of flights for mercenaries, arms trading, narcotics trafficking, and money laundering—were stated clearly enough to let it challenge the measures effectively.

• Applicant: Cham Wings Airlines LLC, a Syrian air carrier; defendant: Council of the European Union.
• Challenge targeted Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1510 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1517, which extended the listing until 1 June 2025.
• Court rejected the argument that the statement of reasons was inadequate; it treated the complaint as really attacking the factual basis of the listing.

CC v Disclosure and Barring Service (SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS) [2026] UKUT 64 (AAC) (09 February 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed CC’s appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s final decision to keep her on both the Adults’ Barred List and the Children’s Barred List. It held that the DBS had made no material mistake of fact or law in finding, on the balance of probabilities, that she had engaged in relevant conduct during physiotherapy appointments with three adult clients and that barring was appropriate and proportionate.

• Parties: CC (a physiotherapist) v the Disclosure and Barring Service, in an appeal under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 regime.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; DBS decision to retain CC on both barred lists upheld.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal accepted the DBS had lawfully relied on documentary evidence from the employer’s disciplinary process and found no material error in its factual findings or proportionality assessment.

Caffe Concerto Ltd v Johnson (RATING - PROCEDURE - late filing of an appeal with the VTE - VTE's reasons for dismissing the appeal - requirements of Denton & Ors v TH White Ltd) [2026] UKUT 148 (LC) (15 April 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal by Caffe Concerto Ltd against the Valuation Tribunal for England’s refusal to extend time for a late rating appeal. It held that the VTE had not properly applied the Denton framework, had treated the delay as serious without adequate analysis, and had given insufficient weight to the Valuation Officer’s unexpected use of email rather than the portal; the Tribunal extended time and reinstated the VTE proceedings.

• Parties: Caffe Concerto Ltd (appellant) v Nicola Johnson (respondent), in a rating appeal under the non-domestic rating ‘check, challenge, appeal’ regime.
• Holding: VTE’s refusal to extend time was set aside; the Upper Tribunal substituted a decision extending time to 20 August 2025 and reinstated the appeal.
• Reasoning: the VTE gave only cursory consideration to Denton stage 1, did not properly weigh the impact of the Valuation Officer’s email service at stage 2, and addressed no stage 3 factors.

BZP & Anor v Warwickshire County Council (Tribunal practice and procedure - tribunal jurisdiction; Special educational needs - special educational provision - other) [2026] UKUT 113 (AAC) (09 March 2026)

The Upper Tribunal considered an appeal concerning an Education, Health and Care Plan for a child, focusing on whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law on two issues: an adult:pupil ratio in a small class and inclusion of psychotherapy as special educational provision. It held that the First-tier Tribunal had not made an error of law on either issue and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also addressed its own jurisdiction after a partial review by the First-tier Tribunal, treating the remaining part of the decision as appealable to the Upper Tribunal.

• Parties: BZP and BZQ appealed against Warwickshire County Council over their daughter BZR’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
• Holding: no error of law under section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 on either appealed issue.
• Reasoning: the tribunal accepted a flexible wording requiring a small class with an adult:pupil ratio sufficient for high direct teacher input, rather than a fixed 1:5 ratio.

Burdett & Anor v Financial Conduct Authority (FINANCIAL SERVICES - Pension transfers to a SIPP and investments in offshore property development group - Authority decided to impose financial penalties and prohibition orders on the basis that Applicants lacked integrity) [2026] UKUT 68 (TCC) (12 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

BT v Secretary of State for Defence (War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation) [2025] UKUT 419 (AAC) (15 December 2025)

From Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)

BRADSHAW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 15653/22 (Art 3 P1 - Free expression of the opinion of the people - ... compliance with positive obligation to protect its electorate from hostile interference by Russia in democratic elections : Preliminary objection joined to merits : Fourth Section) [2025] ECHR 188 (22 July 2025)

From European Court of Human Rights

Bowen v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2026] UKUT 224 (AAC) (15 June 2026)

From Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)

Better Intelligent Management Ltd v Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Ltd & Anor (LANDLORD AND TENANT - RIGHT TO MANAGE - JURISDICTION) [2026] UKUT 257 (LC) (08 July 2026)

From United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)

Bence v Cornwall Council & Anor (INFORMATION RIGHTS) [2025] UKUT 420 (AAC) (17 December 2025)

From Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)

Belaruskali v Council (Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-816/24P (18 June 2026)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

Barclays Bank PLC v Revenue and Customs (Corporation Tax - loan relationships) [2026] UKUT 212 (TCC) (08 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Application for leave to appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 by Krzysztof Romanik against The Lord Advocate for the Polish Judicial Authority (High Court of Justiciary) [2026] HCJAC 15 (06 May 2026)

From Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons

AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd v EE Ltd & Anor (Electronic Communications Code - Respondents in occupation of telecommunications site) [2026] UKUT 45 (LC) (09 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)

Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland [2025] UKSC 23 (11 June 2025)

From United Kingdom Supreme Court

Ancean Ltd v Financial Conduct Authority (FINANCIAL SERVICES - procedure) [2025] UKUT 404 (TCC) (05 December 2025)

From United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

AH & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Identity documentation; returns to the KRI) Iraq CG [2026] UKUT 150 (IAC) (14 April 2026)

From Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

ABJ, R. v [2026] UKSC 8 (26 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Supreme Court

Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Rev1) [2025] UKSC 15 (16 April 2025)

From United Kingdom Supreme Court

AA v Disclosure & Barring Service [2026] UKUT 176 (AAC) (23 April 2026)

From Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)

A v Disclosure and Barring Service [2026] UKUT 175 (AAC) (29 April 2026)

From Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)

A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [2026] UKSC 16 (02 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Supreme Court

1st Alternative Medical Staffing Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Application for permission to appeal) [2026] UKUT 248 (TCC) (02 July 2026)

From United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Meta Platforms Ireland (Compensation equitable) (ntellectual property - Copyright and related rights - National legislation providing for the publishers of those publications to be entitled to 'fair compensation' - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-797/23 (12 May 2026)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

Commission v Hungary (Valeurs de l'Union) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - National legislation introducing restrictions in relation to deviation from the self-identity corresponding to the sex assigned at birth, gender reassignment, or homosexuality, with a view to protecting children - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-769/22 (21 April 2026)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ZINCHENKO AND TAMTURA v. UKRAINE - 46839/17 (Art 3 (substantive) - Degrading treatment - Confinement in a glass dock during criminal trial hearings : Remainder inadmissible : Fifth Section) [2026] ECHR 43 (05 March 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

Zhao v Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) Ltd (UNFAIR DISMISSAL) [2026] EAT 101 (10 July 2026)

From United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

Zapryanova v Niperovics (Approved) [2026] IECA 120 (03 July 2026)

From Irish Court of Appeal

Z.I. v The Minister For Justice (Approved) [2025] IEHC 708 (09 December 2025)

From High Court of Ireland Decisions

Z.A. AND K.S. v. TURKIYE - 36449/17 (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Second Section) [2026] ECHR 79 (05 May 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

Z v. ICELAND - 3538/21 (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Second Section) [2026] ECHR 9 (13 January 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

Z Nursery Ltd v Ofsted [2026] UKFTT 971 (HESC) (30 June 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care Chamber)

Youssef v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 880 (GRC) (16 June 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

YOKUSLU v. TURKIYE - 489/24 (Art 6 s 1 (civil) - Independent and impartial tribunal - Continued deficiencies in practice and lack of sufficient safeguards, despite improvements brought by legislative reform, of the Arbitration Committee of the Turkish Football Federation : Remainder inadmissible : Second Section) [2026] ECHR 285 (06 January 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

YH v ECB (Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ T-366/23 (19 November 2025)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

Yavor Poptoshev v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors [2025] IESC 47 (24 November 2025)

From Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions

YASAK v. TURKIYE - 17389/20 (Art 43 • Government's request to reconsider the referral decision of the Grand Chamber panel rejected : Preliminary objection dismissed : Grand Chamber) [2026] ECHR 75 (05 May 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

Yanukovych v Council (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ T-643/22 (10 September 2025)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

Yanukovych v Council (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ T-642/22 (10 September 2025)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

YAKYMCHUK v. UKRAINE - 26519/16 (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Fifth Section) [2025] ECHR 203 (11 September 2025)

From European Court of Human Rights

Y.K. v. CROATIA - 38776/21 (Art 3 (procedural) - Expulsion - Removal of Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity without allowing him access to the international protection procedure : First Section) [2025] ECHR 187 (17 July 2025)

From European Court of Human Rights

Y.F.C. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS - 21325/19 (Art 3 (procedural) - Lack of effective and independent investigation into arguable claims of ill-treatment of migrants : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : Fourth Section) [2026] ECHR 67 (21 April 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

Y.D. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Ors (Approved) [2026] IEHC 277 (01 May 2026)

From High Court of Ireland Decisions

Y v. SERBIA - 28322/20 (Art 8 - Positive obligations - Family life : Remainder inadmissible : Third Section) [2026] ECHR 91 (12 May 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

XY v AB (Practice and Procedure) [2025] EAT 66 (13 May 2025)

From United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

XX v YY [2026] EAT 89 (15 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

Xu v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 941 (GRC) (25 June 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

X v. GEORGIA - 35640/22 (Art 3 and Art 8 - Positive obligations - Ineffective criminal investigation into allegations of sexual abuse of a minor by her stepfather : Remainder inadmissible : Fourth Section) [2026] ECHR 54 (31 March 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

X v Y & Ors [2025] EAT 128 (01 September 2025)

From United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

X Internet UnLtd Company v Comisiun na Mean, X Internet UnLtd Company v Comisiun na Mean (Approved) [2026] IEHC 127 (04 March 2026)

From High Court of Ireland Decisions

WS and Others v Frontex (Operation de retour conjointe) (Appeal - Common policy on asylum and immigration - European integrated border management of the external borders of the European Union - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ C-679/23P (18 December 2025)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

WORD OF LIFE CHURCH OF CHRISTIANS OF EVANGELICAL FAITH IN ARMENIA AND SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA - 30817/13 (Art 9 - No issue with regard to the State's duty of neutrality and impartiality in religious matters on account of domestic court decisions : Remainder inadmissible : Fifth Section) [2026] ECHR 57 (02 April 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

Wookey v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 510 (GRC) (02 April 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Wood v Revenue and Customs (INHERITANCE TAX - transfers of value - s.10 IHTA 1984 - whether intention to confer any gratuitous benefit on any person - exempt transfers - s.21 of IHTA 1984 - whether donations were part of normal expenditure) [2026] UKFTT 589 (TC) (16 April 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (Tax)

Wong v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 701 (GRC) (19 May 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

WM Morrison Supermarket Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Anti-dumping duty - whether factory in Thailand for production of aluminium foil breached the anti-avoidance rule) [2026] UKFTT 557 (TC) (11 March 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (Tax)

Winter v Winter (Re Application for Committal for Contempt of Court) [2026] NIFam 12 (11 May 2026)

From High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Family Division Decisions

Winstanley v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2026] UKFTT 820 (GRC) (11 June 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Wilson, In the Matter of an Inquest Touching Upon the Death Of [2026] NICoroner 1 (23 April 2026)

From Northern Irish Courts - Miscellaneous

Williams v The Attorney General's Office [2026] UKFTT 690 (GRC) (18 May 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Williams v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 861 (GRC) (11 June 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Williams v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 682 (GRC) (06 May 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Williams v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 119 (GRC) (18 December 2025)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Williams v Information Commissioner & Anor [2026] UKFTT 568 (GRC) (15 April 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Williams v Information Commissioner & Anor [2026] UKFTT 308 (GRC) (02 March 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Williams v Information Commissioner & Anor [2026] UKFTT 120 (GRC) (18 December 2025)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Wilders v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX - share loss relief - whether circumstances of the investment gave rise to a loss within sections 131, 137 Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA) and section 17 Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA) - was relief denied by and of the provisions of general or targeted anti avoidance provisions (sections 16A, 30 or 38 TCGA)) [2026] UKFTT 517 (TC) (01 April 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (Tax)

White v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 739 (GRC) (20 May 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

White v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 608 (GRC) (23 April 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

White v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 599 (GRC) (23 April 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Wheatley Homes East LTD against Gavin Rehfisch (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCEDIN 58 (14 August 2025)

From Scottish Sheriff Court Decisions

Westfalisches Textilwerk Adolf Ahlers v Commission ( Competition - Agreement, decisions and concerted practices - Market for Pierre Cardin-licensed clothing and accessories for men, women and children - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ T-87/25 (06 May 2026)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

West Midlands Fire and Rescue Authority (Local government) [2025] UKICO 364835 (4 August 2025)

From Information Commissioner's Office

Wermter v Information Commissioner & Anor [2026] UKFTT 677 (GRC) (12 May 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Welfare Advice Centre v Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 146 (GRC) (30 January 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Webster v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 374 (12 June 2026)

From High Court of Ireland Decisions

WebGroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates (Electronic commerce - Information society services - Coordinated field - Restriction on the free movement of information society services from another Member State - Derogation - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-188/24 (16 June 2026)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

Ward v AG (Royal Court : Appeal (Criminal) : Temple) [2026] JRC 113 (28 April 2026)

From Jersey Unreported Judgments

Walton v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 1525 (GRC) (11 December 2025)

From First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

Walsh v An Coismisiun Pleanala (Approved) [2026] IEHC 286 (08 May 2026)

From High Court of Ireland Decisions

Wales v The Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal & Anor (Approved) [2026] IECA 103 (03 June 2026)

From Irish Court of Appeal

Waithaka v Barclays Execution Services Ltd (Race discrimination; Continuing act Strike out/dismissal; Delay in tribunal judgment; Claim in time) [2026] EAT 105 (17 July 2026)

From United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

Vodovody a kanalizace Přerov (Approximation of laws - Open data and the re-use of public sector information - Concept of 'public undertaking' - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-575/24 (18 June 2026)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

Vivendi v Commission ( - - Judgment) French Text [2026] EUECJ T-1097/23 (03 June 2026)

From Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

VERSACI v. ITALY - 3795/22 (Art 8 - Private life - Refusal by the head of police to grant the applicant a "public security licence", to carry out bookmaking activities on behalf of a foreign company, - "good character" requirement - Remainder inadmissible : First Section) [2025] ECHR 114 (15 May 2025)

From European Court of Human Rights

Verbenagrove Ltd v Evans and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 124 (04 March 2026)

From High Court of Ireland Decisions

VELEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA - 56007/21 (Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion : Third Section) French Text [2026] ECHR 113 (09 June 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

VEKUA v. GEORGIA - 43537/22 (Art 6 § 2 - Presumption of innocence - Administrative courts' annulment of an administrative act for being based on a fraudulent document obtained by the applicant, referring to evidence and findings from earlier criminal proceedings against her for fraud discontinued as time-barred : Remainder inadmissible : Fourth Section) [2025] ECHR 280 (16 December 2025)

From European Court of Human Rights

Vani Enterprises Ltd v Revenue and Customs (best judgement assessment - Corporation Tax - discovery assessment - best judgement assessment - Corporation Tax - discovery assessment) [2026] UKFTT 885 (TC) (10 June 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (Tax)

VAN SLOOTEN v. THE NETHERLANDS - 45644/18 (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Fourth Section) [2025] ECHR 94 (15 April 2025)

From European Court of Human Rights

VAINIK AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA - 17982/21 (Death of one of the applicants during the Grand Chamber proceedings : Struck out of the list : Grand Chamber) [2026] ECHR 130 (30 June 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

VAINIK AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA - 17982/21 (Art 8 - Private life - Introduction of total ban on smoking in prisons : Remainder inadmissible : Third Section) [2025] ECHR 241 (04 November 2025)

From European Court of Human Rights

V.T. AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN - 20075/16 (Article 2 - Right to life : First Section) [2026] ECHR 120 (18 June 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

V.N. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN - 42101/23 (No Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : First Section) [2026] ECHR 35 (19 February 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

UYGUN v. TURKIYE - 9389/19 (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Second Section) [2025] ECHR 132 (03 June 2025)

From European Court of Human Rights

UKRAYINSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 48751/19 (Art 34 - Undue interference with the exercise of the right of individual application of forty of the applicants : Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : Fifth Section) [2026] ECHR 56 (02 April 2026)

From European Court of Human Rights

UK Luxury Heights Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Application for disclosure - jurisdiction - CIS - Reg 9(4) condition B - Sch 55 penalties - relevance - application refused - grounds struck out) [2026] UKFTT 796 (TC) (Hea On: 29 April 2026)

From First-tier Tribunal (Tax)

UI2026001640 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001640 (05 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001409 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001409 (11 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001231 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001231 (12 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001221 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001221 (11 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001185 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001185 (05 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001166 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001166 (02 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001165 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001165 (16 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001151 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001151 (19 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001123 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001123 (02 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001089 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001089 (22 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001066 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001066 (11 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026001063 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026001063 (03 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000918 & UI2026000919 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000918 (14 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000895 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000895 (19 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000882 & UI2026000883 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000882 (12 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000879 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000879 (09 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000871 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000871 (13 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000851 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000851 (16 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000833 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000833 (15 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000795 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000795 (21 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000771 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000771 (19 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000759 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000759 (09 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000743 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000743 (03 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000705 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000705 (15 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000696 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000696 (08 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000663 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000663 (12 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000642 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000642 (22 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000618 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000618 (29 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000562 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000562 (17 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000558 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000558 (19 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000512 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000512 (08 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000489 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000489 (27 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000455 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000455 (16 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000390 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000390 (17 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000385 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000385 (27 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000366 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000366 (10 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000362 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000362 (12 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000346 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000346 (06 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000335 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000335 (17 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000266 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000266 (17 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000232 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000232 (09 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000211 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000211 (15 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000208 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000208 (15 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000193 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000193 (14 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000187 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000187 (12 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000159 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000159 (11 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000081 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000081 (22 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000073 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000073 (12 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000067 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000067 (12 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000064 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000064 (15 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000044 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000044 (05 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000043 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000043 (20 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000032 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000032 (18 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026000031 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000031 (13 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2026-000417 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026 (15 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005866 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005866 (10 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005863 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005863 (17 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005858 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005858 (16 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005813 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005813 (24 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005810 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005810 (03 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005777 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005777 (01 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005769 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005769 (16 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005765 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005765 (27 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005730 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005730 (27 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005726 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005726 (26 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005708 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005708 (05 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005701 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005701 (12 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005694 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005694 (12 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005688 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005688 (04 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005652 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005652 (13 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005600 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005600 (30 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005572 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005572 (18 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005556 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005556 (16 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005527 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005527 (26 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005491 & UI2025005477 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005491 (16 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005481 & UI2025005482 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005481 (27 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005468 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005468 (11 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005433 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005433 (03 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005404 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005404 (02 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005367 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005367 (13 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005361 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005361 (10 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005312 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005312 (17 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005304 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005304 (04 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005296 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005296 (30 January 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005295 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005295 (21 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005286 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005286 (06 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005279 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005279 (25 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005277 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005277 (10 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005275 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005275 (24 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005272 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005272 (04 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005250 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005250 (5 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005199 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005199 (19 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005198 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005198 (02 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005197 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005197 (11 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005192 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005192 (29 January 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005191 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005191 (11 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005185 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005185 (27 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005163 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005163 (6 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005160 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005160 (10 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005156 & UI2025005157 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005156 (05 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005136 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005136 (09 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005132 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005132 (13 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005131 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005131 (14 January 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005129 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005129 (17 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005124 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005124 (27 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005119 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005119 (04 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005100 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005100 (21 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005072 & UI2025005073 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005072 (12 January 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005037 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005037 (13 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025005006 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005006 (03 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004991 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004991 (7 January 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004987 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004987 (03 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004903 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004903 (11 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004902 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004902 (15 April 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004894 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004894 (11 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004892 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004892 (16 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004887 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004887 (10 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004864 & Ors [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004864 (19 May 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004845 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004845 (5 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004838 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004838 (02 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004827 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004827 (01 June 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004800 & UI2025004801 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025004800 (15 December 2025)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004756 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004756 (12 February 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004673 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004673 (26 January 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004659 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004659 (06 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004652 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004652 (21 January 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004651 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004651 (29 January 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004645 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004645 (27 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

UI2025004644 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004644 (04 March 2026)

From United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments