Recent legal news

Rule of law

The rule of law means that lawyers advise and act for their clients, regardless of their politican affiliations. Some politically affiliated people, let us call them politicians, are unhappy about this. Some of them seem to think lawyers should be party political, and only advise people they approve of. Some of them seem to think the courts should support their political actions, even if they are not legal, and that they can ignore the court’s ruling if they find them inconvenient.

Two stories in the news this week illustrate problems some political people have with understanding the rule of law and the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers.

In this country, the Attorney General has attracted criticism over his sometimes awkward or unsavoury clients, and the support he has given to fellow lawyers. But unless his critics can identify a conflict of interest with his duties to the government, it seems that they are only expressing a poor understanding of the rule of law.

Americans, meanwhile, are fond of calling their politicians “lawmakers” but that does raise questions when they are also “lawbreakers”. Yet now we have the extraordinary prospect of a president who is also a convicted felon, suggesting that he might simply ignore court orders that defy the will of his people. In a recent statement

“The American Bar Association condemns recent remarks of high-ranking officials of the administration that appear to question the legitimacy of judicial review and demand impeachment of a judge merely because the court did not agree with the government’s position. These comments pose serious risks to our constitutional framework that separates power among three co-equal branches.”

Before now, to quote CNN, “The idea that the White House would simply ignore a court order was more a theoretical question for a law school seminar than a potential reality.” The article points out, however, that Trump is essentially doing what he said he would do, out of the campaign trail, so he is at any rate keeping his word. That may be unlikely for a politician, but one needs to question how many who voted for him really thought it was anything more than campaign talk, the liturgical ramblings of a Magamaniac. Yet he has pardoned the guilty and loosed the convicted, which may not inspire confidence or loyalty in those charged with protecting him and keeping the peace. When politicians are also wealthy people, they need to remember how that wealth is protected. Usually, as David Allen Green points out, by the law. Quis custodiet?

Media: SLAPP (un)happy

The Government has confirmed that it “does not intend to legislate further in the current parliamentary session” against SLAPPs (strategic litigation against public participation) — expensive lawsuits designed to intimidate journalists or other critical voices into silence — the Press Gazette reports.

Moreover the legal regulator, Solicitors Regulatory Authority has been criticised for not taking action on a “textbook” SLAPP, after closing a complaint about a law firm that represented a Russian warlord without any further action. Legal Futures explained that Discreet Law had acted for sanctioned Russian warlord Yevgeniy Prigozhin, leader of the Wagner Group in a libel claim against journalist Eliot Higgins, founder of the investigative website Bellingcat. The case was thrown out by the High Court in 2022 over non-compliance with court orders, by which time Discreet Law had ceased acting. Higgins’s solicitors, London firm McCue Jury & Partners, then complained to the SRA, saying “the proceedings seem to be a textbook example of SLAPP”, but the SRA declined to take action. The reasons for its inaction are analysed, with some scepticism, by Peter Geoghegan on Democracy for Sale: UK law firm that acted for Putin’s warlord Prigozhin ‘broke no rules’.

In a Commons debate last November, Heidi Alexander MP as the justice minister then responsible for the matter said that while the govenment would not rule out legislative measures in future, “Legislation is not the only weapon in our arsenal to deal with abuse of the system. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has already taken action.” Commons debates: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (21 November 2024), at col. 445. But it does not appear that the SRA has lived up to those expectations.

See, by way of comparison: Inforrm’s blog, Belgium: A model for the transposition of the EU anti-SLAPP Directive — Dirk Voorhoof

Taxing times

The Inland Revenue (HMRC) is struggling to collect the taxes the government needs to provide all the public services that we, the taxpayers, and perhaps also they, the non-taxpayers (or tax avoiders), expect from our government.

The National Audit Office has just published a “value for money” report on The administrative cost of the tax system, in which it seeks to increase the transparency of the costs for all parties of administering taxes, establish how far HMRC understands where within the tax system its administrative costs are high and/or increasing, and how it is acting to improve efficiency and productivity, and reduce costs for taxpayers.

The conclusions are mixed. The system has become more complex over time, and while offering high returns for the government, the system is not optimised. Compliance staff productivity remains below pre-pandemic levels. There is evidence that the tax system is imposing increased administrative burdens on taxpayers and their intermediaries, despite the availability of digital channels.

“The cost to HMRC of running the tax system is increasing. In part this is due to rising complexity in the different tax regimes and taxpayer numbers, but it is also due to the additional cost of introducing and remediating digital systems, and moving to a more highly-skilled workforce.”

The Financial Times reports that HMRC ‘vastly underestimating’ UK tax evasion, MPs say. This relates to a recent report of the House of Commons public accounts committee on Tax evasion in the retail sector. They expressed the view that HMRC is “not sufficiently curious about the true scale of tax evasion” and that it could be much higher than the t £5.5 billion in lost revenue in 2022–23, or 0.7% of all taxes owed, that HMRC previously estimated. Moreover, despite significant lost revenue, HMRC “does not have a clear objective or strategy to tackle tax evasion”. It has failed to work collaboratively with Companies House and the Insolvency Service to assess and deal with the true level of corporate tax evasion through fraudulent registrations, corporate abuse and contrived insolvencies. VAT registrations processes are far too open to abuse, and they are not tackling the use of “phoenixism” (phoney corporate insolvency and resurgence) in perpetrating fraud and evasion.

Open politics

The BBC reports that MPs’ bar to reopen with CCTV after alleged spiking. This relates to an incident in the Strangers’ Bar last month in which a woman reported that her drink had been tampered with. The Metropolitan Police force is investigating the incident and no arrests have been made, but it isn’t the first time the bar has been the location of dodgy behaviour. In its colouorful past it has witnessed brawls between MPs, as well as previous accusations (found proven) of sexual misconduct.

Now there will be cameras in this infamous parliamentary watering hole, perhaps a feed can be added to Parliament TV. Watching MPs loosen up over a few bevvies after a long day attending debates in the chamber or quizzing witnesses in a committee room will no doubt provide some light relief from the footage of those occasionally edifying spectacles, and in this day and age we should expect full transparency in our democratic institutions.

Recent case summaries from ICLR

A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4

BANKRUPTCY — Petition — Creditor’s petition: Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle, 31 Jan 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 62; [2025] WLR(D) 74, CA

DENTIST — Discipline — Suspension: General Dental Council v Aga, 04 Feb 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 68; [2025] WLR(D) 70, CA

EXTRADITION — Appeal — Abuse of process: Bye v Government of Sint Maarten, 05 Feb 2025 [2025] EWHC 183 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 77, KBD

HUMAN RIGHTS — Freedom of expression and assembly — Interference with: R v Saarti, 06 Feb 2025 [2025] EWCA Crim 61; [2025] WLR(D) 83, CA

JUDGE — Conduct — Judicial immunity: R (Gregory) v Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, 03 Feb 2025 [2025] EWHC 201 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 75, KBD

LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Community care services — Persons in need of care and support: R (BLZ) v Leeds City Council, 29 Jan 2025 [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 73, KBD

NATIONALITY — British citizenship — Application: R (APD) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 07 Feb 2025 [2025] EWHC 246 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 84, KBD

PLANNING — Development — Flood risk area: Mead Realisations Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 30 Jan 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 32; [2025] WLR(D) 76, CA

PRACTICE — Evidence — Duty to preserve: Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd, 05 Feb 2025 [2025] EWHC 222 (KB); [2025] WLR(D) 79, KBD

PRACTICE — Parties — Substitution or amendment: Office Properties PL Ltd (in liquidation) v Adcamp LLP, 30 Jan 2025 [2025] EWHC 170 (Ch); [2025] WLR(D) 78, Ch D

Recent case comments on ICLR

Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:

Nearly Legal: Prospective discharge of duty and review of decisions: R (Bano) v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 92, CA

Law & Religion UK: Corporal punishment, religious beliefs, professional misconduct and the ECHR: Dr ABC v The General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 242 (Admin), KBD

Global Freedom of Expression: Side By Side International Film Festival v. Russia: expands expression: Side by Side International Film Festival v Russia (Application nos. 32678/18, 32678/18, 17172/20 and 30564/21), ECtHR

Law & Religion UK: Voodoo, religion and employment law: Wint v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] UKET 1306321/2023, ET

Global Freedom of Expression: Ferreira e Castro da Costa Laranjo v. Portugal: contracts expression: Ferreira e Castro da Costa Laranjo v Portugal (Application nos. 33203/20 and 45884/22), ECtHR

A Lawyer Writes: A plague of moths: Patarkatsishvili v Woodward-Fisher [2025] EWHC 265 (Ch), Ch D

Financial Remedies Journal: What to Do Where One Spouse Will Not Co-operate with a Court-Ordered Sale? WZ v HZ [2024] EWFC 407 (B), Fam Ct

Local Government Lawyer: Contempt proceedings, the Aarhus Convention and costs: White v Plymouth City Council [2024] EWHC 2854 (Admin); [2024] WLR(D) 496, KBD

Out-Law: Court of Appeal clarifies foreign judgment enforceability requirements: Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62; [2025] WLR(D) 74, CA

3 Hare Court: Polish up your pleadings! Alton v Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen [2024] EWCA Civ 1435, CA

12 King’s Bench Walk: Police liability, failures to warn, and difficulties with the ‘interference principle’: Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock [2025] EWCA Civ 13, CA

Nearly Legal: Intentional homelessness and tenancy obtained by deception: Emilia Munemo v The City of Wolverhampton Council [2025] EWCC 4, County Ct

Local Government Lawyer: Setting care home fees: R (SARCP) v Stoke-on-Trent City Council [2025] EWHC 18 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 72, KBD

And finally…

Caveat Cupido

In a timely warning for possible victims of Valentine’s Day, Mariya Peykova of 3PB Barristers considers Online dating platforms and the law: can you afford to swipe right for love?

She points out that “some experts believe that dating apps can be addictive” and user dissatisfaction is on the increase. There is a lack of transparency about how the algorithms behind dating apps work, but they appear to be male-focused in their operation, and their game-like features lock users into an endless quest for the “reward” of a like or matching with someone on the platform. Many find the “swipe culture” that pervades modern dating highly toxic.

In the US a proposed federal court class action for breach of consumer laws against Match Group (‘Match’) — whose apps include Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Hinge, TheLeague, OkCupid, OurTime, Meetic, and Pairs — has been referred to arbitration in San Francisco. The plaintiffs claim that Match and its subsidiaries have designed their dating platforms to be addictive, and allege that Match prioritises profits over consumers’ relationship goals.

In the UK, if dating service providers make claims or promises about their services that they do not offer or cannot substantiate, they could be in breach of their duties under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). “Furthermore,” Peykova explains, “the alleged use of dark patterns or design features whose purpose is to keep users in a perpetual state of swiping could amount to an unfair commercial practice”. You, and they, have been warned.

That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading, and make sure you’re signed up for our email alerts. And you can now find ICLR on BlueSky.

This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation.

Featured image: Cupid, Dnipro, Ukraine: photo by Volodymyr Tokar on Unsplash