[{"title":"R. c. Bharwani - 2025 CSC 26 - 2025-07-25","description":"Droit criminel Document mis-à-jour le","id":2738223,"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21149/index.do"},{"id":2738222,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/professor-carolyn-roberts-v-severn-trent-water-limited-and-others/","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Civ 222 Case No: CA-2025-001337 In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the Competition Tribunal Mr Justice Roth, Ian Forrester KC and Professor Alasdair Smith [2025] CAT 17 5 March 2026 Before: Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls Lady Justice Falk Lord Justice Zacaroli Between: PROFESSOR CAROLYN ROBERTS (Proposed Class Representative/Appellant) and (1) SEVERN TRENT WATER LIMITED & SEVERN TRENT PLC (2) UNITED UTILITIES WATER LIMITED & UNITED UTILITIES GROUP PLC (3) YORKSHIRE WATER SERVICES LIMITED & KELDA HOLDINGS LIMITED (4) NORTHUMBRIAN WATER LIMITED & NORTHUMBRIAN WATER GROUP LIMITED (5) ANGLIAN WATER SERVICES LIMITED & ANGLIAN WATER GROUP LIMITED (6) THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED & KEMBLE WATER HOLDINGS LIMITED (Proposed Defendants/Respondents) and THE WATER SERVICES REGULATORY AUTHORITY (OFWAT) (Intervener) The post Professor Carolyn Roberts -v- Severn Trent Water Limited and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Professor Carolyn Roberts -v- Severn Trent Water Limited and others"},{"title":"Sturgeon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 46 (CanLII)","description":"Employment insurance Administrative law — Judicial review — Certiorari — Procedural fairness — Employment Insurance Act, S.C. 1996, c. 23, s.","id":2737530,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca46/2026fca46.html"},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/17986/index.do","id":2737003,"description":"Document mis-à-jour le","title":"Threlfall c. Carleton University - 2019 CSC 50 - [2019] 3 RCS 726 - 2019-10-31"},{"id":2737001,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/the-government-of-ukraine-v-artem-dmytruk/","title":"The Government of Ukraine -v- Artem Dmytruk","description":"In Westminster Magistrates’ Court 4 March 2026 Before: Senior District Judge Goldspring (Chief Magistrate) for England and Wales Between: The Government of Ukraine (Requesting State) -v- Artem Dmytruk (Defendant) The post The Government of Ukraine -v- Artem Dmytruk appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"id":2737002,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/manchester-university-nhs-foundation-trust-v-rnm-and-others/","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 452 (Fam) Case No: FD25P00762 In the High Court of Justice Family Division sitting at Manchester CJC 27 February 2026 Before: Mrs Justice Theis DBE Between: Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust -v- RNM RNF RN (by his Children’s Guardian) The post Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust -v- RNM and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust -v- RNM and others"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/south-east-water-limited-v-water-services-regulation-authority-ofwat/","id":2735487,"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 479 (Admin) Case No: AC-2026-LON-000872 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 2 March 2026 Before: Mr Justice Chamberlain Between: The King on the application of South East Water Limited -v- Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) The post South East Water Limited -v- Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"South East Water Limited -v- Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat)"},{"description":"Droit criminel Document mis-à-jour le","title":"R. c. S.B. - 2025 CSC 24 - 2025-07-18","id":2734389,"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21130/index.do"},{"title":"R -v- Justin Clarke-Samuel","description":"At the Central Criminal Court 3 March 2026 Sentencing remarks of HHJ Lucraft KC Between: R -v- Justin Clarke-Samuel The post R -v- Justin Clarke-Samuel appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2734387,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-justin-clarke-samuel/"},{"id":2734388,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/infinni-innovations-s-a-v-ofms-limited-and-others/","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 470 (Comm) Case No: CL-2025-000564 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Commercial Court 3 March 2026 Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Saini Between: Infinni Innovations S.A. -v- OFMS Limited OMLAB Digital Limited Pavlo Kharmanskyi Danyl Romanov The post Infinni Innovations S.A. -v- OFMS Limited and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Infinni Innovations S.A. -v- OFMS Limited and others"},{"id":2733017,"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21131/index.do","description":"Droit criminel Document mis-à-jour le","title":"R. c. I.M. - 2025 CSC 23 - 2025-07-18"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/lesley-barnor-townsend-v-epsom-and-st-helier-university-hospitals-nhs-trust/","id":2733016,"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Civ 195 Case No: CA-2026-000361 In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the Court of Protection The Hon Mrs Justice Theis DBE COP20019348 3 March 2026 Before: Lord Justice Newey Lady Justice Asplin Lord Justice Baker Between: Lesley Barnor Townsend -v- Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust The post Lesley Barnor Townsend -v- Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Lesley Barnor Townsend -v- Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust"},{"title":"R. c. Varennes - 2025 CSC 22 - 2025-07-11","description":"Droit criminel Document mis-à-jour le","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21126/index.do","id":2732088},{"title":"Lancaster City Council -v- SOS for Housing, Communities and Local Government and others (order)","description":"Claim No: AC-2025-MAN-000342 & 343 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Planning Court 18 February 2026 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Kimblin Between: The King on the application of Lancaster City Council -v- (1) Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government -and- (2) L&W Wilson (Higham) Ltd On an application by the Claimant for statutory review ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN Disposal and Costs: (a) The claim for statutory review is dismissed. (b) The Claimant shall pay the First Defendant’s costs, such costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. (c) The Claimant shall pay the Second Defendant’s costs of the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds, such costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. REASONS (1) Disposal and Costs: a. This is the usual costs order in these circumstances. b. The Claimant agreed the order concerning the First Defendant’s costs, save that the Court has directed detailed assessment. c. The Claimant agreed the Second Defendant’s costs of the Acknowledgment of Service. d. The Second Defendant sought its costs of appearing; however, this is not a case that crosses the exceptional threshold for a second set of costs. e. The matter could have been efficiently disposed of without the Second Defendant attending, helpful though its submissions were. Signed: MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN Date: 18 February 2026 The post Lancaster City Council -v- SOS for Housing, Communities and Local Government and others (order) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2732087,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/lancaster-city-council-v-sos-for-housing-communities-and-local-government-and-others-order/"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca44/2026fca44.html","id":2730543,"title":"Aslam v. Canada, 2026 FCA 44 (CanLII)","description":"Costs — Federal Court jurisdiction — Trial Division — Assessment of costs — Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, r. 407, Tariff"},{"title":"R. c. Underwood - 2025 CSC 14 - 2025-04-17","description":"Droit criminel Document mis-à-jour le","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20971/index.do","id":2730304},{"title":"Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz c. Canada (Procureur général); White, Ottenheimer & Baker c. Canada (Procureur général); R. c. Fink - 2002 CSC 61 - [2002] 3 RCS 209 - 2002-09-12","description":"Droit constitutionnel Droit criminel Document mis-à-jour le","id":2730305,"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/2002/index.do"},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20977/index.do","id":2730303,"description":"Droit des communications Document mis-à-jour le","title":"Telus Communications Inc. c. Fédération canadienne des municipalités - 2025 CSC 15 - 2025-04-25"},{"id":2730301,"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21090/index.do","title":"R. c. Bouvette - 2025 CSC 18 - 2025-06-06","description":"Droit criminel Document mis-à-jour le"},{"title":"R. c. J.W. - 2025 CSC 16 - 2025-05-23","description":"Droit criminel Document mis-à-jour le","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21061/index.do","id":2730302},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20773/index.do","id":2730300,"description":"Droit de la famille Document mis-à-jour le","title":"Dunmore c. Mehralian - 2025 CSC 20 - 2025-06-20"},{"title":"XYZ -v- (1) Lloyds Bank PLC (2) Citibank N.A. (anonymity order)","description":"Claim no: BL-2026-000180 In the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Business List (ChD) 13 February 2026 In the Intended Action: Master McQuail Between: XYZ and (1) Lloyds Bank PLC (2) Citibank N.A. UPON the Intended Claimant’s Application Noticed dated 10 February 2026 AND UPON it appearing that revealing the identity of the Intended Claimant would unfairly damage the interests of the Intended Claimant and, accordingly, that publication of details revealing its identity ought to be prohibited AND UPON the Respondents being on notice of this application and confirming that they had no objection to it. AND UPON this Application being made on the papers AND PURSUANT to CPR rule 39.2 and CPR rule 5.4 IT IS ORDERED THAT: The Intended Claimant has permission to issue a claim form in which it may be identified as XYZ and it is to be referred to as such (or as the Claimant) thereafter, including in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the intended proceedings and in any judgment or order in the intended proceedings and in any report of the intended proceedings by the press or otherwise. The Intended Claimant has permission to state its address on the claim form and all other documents as c/o Withers LLP, 20 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7AN (its solicitors). Any non-party seeking the permission of a Judge or Master to access the documents filed in the intended proceedings including the evidence and exhibits, Part 8 claim form and any orders made must make an application in accordance with CPR 23 and give notice to the Intended Claimant of that application. Any information which is likely to lead to the identification of the Intended Claimant must not be disclosed. All hearings in the Intended Proceedings be held in private, save as otherwise directed by the Court. This first, second and fourth and fifth paragraphs of this order shall remain in place until 50 days after an Order is issued following the Intended Claimant’s application in the Intended Proceedings, or until further order of the Court, after which the anonymity of the Intended Claimant need no longer be maintained. The Intended Claimant shall have liberty to apply in respect of paragraph 6 in the event the requirement for anonymity need to be maintained for longer. Permission to restore Any third party affected by this order may apply in accordance with CPR 23 and on notice to the Intended Claimant to set aside or vary this order within 7 days of service of this order on that party. This Order is to be served with the claim form in the intended proceedings. Costs No order as to costs. Other Pursuant to the ‘Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders’ issued by the Master of the Rolls dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this Order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice. The post XYZ -v- (1) Lloyds Bank PLC (2) Citibank N.A. (anonymity order) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2730299,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/xyz-v-1-lloyds-bank-plc-2-citibank-n-a-anonymity-order/"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca39/2026fca39.html","id":2726434,"description":"Labour relations — R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 — Section","title":"Henrikson v. Westjet, 2026 FCA 39 (CanLII)"},{"description":"Employment — Constructive dismissal — Unjust dismissal Administrative law — Judicial review —","title":"Canadian Pacific Railway Company (Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway) v. Katz, 2026 FCA 42 (CanLII)","id":2726435,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca42/2026fca42.html"},{"title":"Fatema v. Higa, 2026 FCA 43 (CanLII)","description":"Federal Court jurisdiction — Trial Division Administrative law — Judicial review — Certiorari Practice —","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca43/2026fca43.html","id":2726436},{"description":"At Preston Crown Court 27 February 2026 Sentencing remarks of HHJ Altham Between: R -v- Robert Easom The post R -v- Robert Easom appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- Robert Easom","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-robert-easom/","id":2725995},{"id":2725993,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/byl-and-another-v-chancellor-of-the-exchequer-and-others/","title":"BYL and another -v- Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Civ 170 Appeal Nos: Appeal 1: CA-2025-001851 & Appeal 2:CA-2025-001686 Case Nos: Claim 1 (AC-2024-LON-004232) and Claim 3 (AC-2025-LON-000133) In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the High Court of Justice Divisional Court Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain [2025] EWHC 1467 (Admin), [2026] 1 WLR 10 27 February 2026 Before: Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls Lord Justice Singh Lady Justice Falk Between: Claim 1/Appeal 1: CA-2025-001851 THE KING on the application of BYL (by their litigation friend BAU) BAU (Claimants/Appellants) -and- CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Defendant/Respondent) -and- COMMISSIONERS OF HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS (Interested Parties) -and- SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION (Intervener) Claim 3/Appeal 2: CA-2025-001686 AND BETWEEN: THE KING on the application of: (1) EMMANUEL SCHOOL (DERBY) LIMITED T/A EMMANUEL SCHOOL (2) DEWSBURY GOSPEL CHURCH T/A THE BRANCH CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (3) HAMPSHIRE CHRISTIAN EDUCATION TRUST T/A THE KING’S SCHOOL (4) WYCLIF INDEPENDENT CHRISTIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION LIMITED T/A WYCLIF INDEPENDENT CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (5) YVONNE OWUSU-ANSAH (6) STEPHEN JOHN WHITE (7) JOSIAH WHITE (a child, by his litigation friend STEPHEN JOHN WHITE) (8) AHD (9) ANF (a child, by their litigation friend AHD) (10) AWM (11) ASK (a child, by their litigation friend AWM) (Claimants/Appellants) -and- CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Defendant/Respondent) -and- COMMISSIONERS OF HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS (Interested Parties) -and- SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION Intervener The post BYL and another -v- Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"title":"John Clark and others -v- Gerry Adams","description":"Claim number: KB-2022-004780 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division 27 February 2026 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Swift Between: John Clark Jonathan Ganesh Barry Laycock -v- Gerry Adams Order UPON HEARING Leading Counsel for the Claimants and Leading Counsel for the Defendant at the pre-trial review on 13 and 25 February 2026 AND UPON the Claimants’ application dated 1 July 2025 for an order anonymising two of the Claimants’ witnesses in these proceedings (“the Claimants’ Anonymity Application”) AND UPON the Order of Master Gidden dated 6 August 2025 which granted the Claimants’ Anonymity Application (“the Ex Parte Anonymity Order”) AND UPON the Defendant’s Application dated 20 August 2025 for an order setting aside the Ex Parte Anonymity Order (“the Defendant’s Set Aside Application”) AND UPON the Claimants’ application dated 16 January 2026 for an order varying the number of witnesses of fact whose evidence they are permitted to rely on at trial (“the Number of Witnesses Application”) AND UPON considering the statements of Witness “A” dated 24th October 2025 and 18th February 2026 and the statements of Witness “B” dated 29th October 2025 and 18th February 2026 IT IS ORDERED THAT Number of Witnesses Application 1. Paragraph 3(c) of the Order of Senior Master Cook dated 6th January 2025 be varied to read: “Evidence of fact is limited to 14 witnesses on behalf of each party.” 2. The Claimants’ evidence at trial is required to be heard between 10th-12th March 2026 unless otherwise permitted by the Trial Judge. Anonymity 3. The Ex Parte Anonymity Order is set aside and is replaced by the orders set out at paragraphs 4 to 9 below. 4. The witnesses whose statements are currently served using the cyphers “Witness A” and “Witness B” be granted anonymity in the trial of this action. 5. Witness A is permitted to withhold their name and address and any other information that might identify them. 6. Witness B is permitted to withhold their name and address and any other information that might identify them. 7. Witnesses A and B are permitted to give their evidence from behind a screen. 8. There shall be no report, whether oral or in writing, or other communication in whatever form (including internet or social media) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public, of or concerning the identity of Witnesses “A” and “B” from the date of this order which includes: a) The name or address of Witnesses “A” and “B;” b) Any particulars likely to lead to the identification of Witnesses ‘A” and “B;” c) Any image or likeness of Witnesses “A” and “B”. 9. The court shall arrange for screens to be placed in the courtroom to shield Witnesses A and B from the public. Transmission provision 10. Any request for a direction under section 85A(3)(b) of the Courts Act 2003 (“a transmission direction request”) by a person not taking part in the proceedings (“an applicant”) for permission to watch or listen to these proceedings remotely must be made by 10am on Thursday 5 March 2025. 11. Any transmission direction request should be sent by email to kbtransmissionrequests@justice.gov.uk and must include: a) the full name of the applicant; b) the email address of the applicant; c) whether the applicant would be located within the jurisdiction of England and Wales at all times when attending the proceedings remotely (if a transmission direction were to be made); and, if not, details of the applicant’s location; d) any information the applicant wishes to provide in support of the request, including in particular any reason(s) why it is contended that making such a direction would be in the interests of justice; and e) a statement by the applicant in the following terms: “If permitted to attend the hearing remotely, I understand and undertake to","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/john-clark-and-others-v-gerry-adams/","id":2725994},{"description":"At Chester Crown Court 27 February 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mrs Justice Steyn DBE Between: R -v- Tony Devenport The post R -v- Tony Devenport appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- Tony Devenport","id":2724910,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-tony-devenport/"},{"id":2724908,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/zaha-hadid-limited-v-the-zaha-hadid-foundation/","title":"Zaha Hadid Limited -v- The Zaha Hadid Foundation","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Civ 192 Case No: CA-2025-000830 In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Business List (ChD) Mr Justice Adam Johnson [2024] EWHC 3325 (Ch) 27 February 2026 Before: The Chancellor of the High Court Lord Justice Peter Jackson Lord Justice Popplewell Between: Zaha Hadid Limited -v- The Zaha Hadid Foundation The post Zaha Hadid Limited -v- The Zaha Hadid Foundation appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 427 (Admin) Case No: AC-202-LON-004461 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 27 February 2026 Before: Lord Justice Warby and Ms Justice Obi Between: Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Hamit Coskun The post Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Hamit Coskun appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Hamit Coskun","id":2724909,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/director-of-public-prosecutions-v-hamit-coskun-2/"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2026/2026caf38/2026caf38.html","id":2724198,"description":"partialité — agents des affaires du travail — impartialité — médiation —","title":"Boua c. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2026 CAF 38 (CanLII)"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca40/2026fca40.html","id":2724199,"title":"Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC, 2026 FCA 40 (CanLII)","description":"Trademarks — Descriptive certification — S. 12(1)(d) and 16(3)(a) of the Trademarks Act — Trade Marks Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13, ss. 12(1)(d), 16(3)(a). Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of"},{"description":"Administrative law — Judicial review — Certiorari Employment insurance — S. 30(1) of Employment Insurance","title":"Arnold v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 41 (CanLII)","id":2724200,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca41/2026fca41.html"},{"id":2723750,"link":"https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2026/02/24/judiciary-says-courthouses-are-crisis-seeks-real-property-authority","description":"The condition of federal courthouses around the country is in a deepening state of crisis, compelling the Judiciary to ask Congress for authority to directly manage properties that are essential to carrying out its constitutional","title":"Judiciary Says Courthouses Are in Crisis, Seeks Real Property Authority"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-christopher-maclean/","id":2723749,"title":"R -v- Christopher Maclean","description":"In the Crown Court at Maidstone 26 February 2026 Sentencing remarks of The Hon. Mr Justice Pepperall Between: The King -v- Christopher Maclean The post R -v- Christopher Maclean appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"title":"Dana Astra IOOO -v- Foreign Secretary","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Civ 160 Case No: CA-2025-000603 In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court Mr Justice Saini [2025] EWHC 289 (Admin) 26 February 2026 Before: Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls Lord Justice Bean (Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing Between: Dana Astra IOOO (a company registered in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Belarus) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs The post Dana Astra IOOO -v- Foreign Secretary appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2722094,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/dana-astra-iooo-v-foreign-secretary/"},{"id":2721453,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca36/2026fca36.html","title":"Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FCA 36 (CanLII)","description":"Citizenship and Immigration — Revocation of citizenship — Legislation saved by Charter s. 7 — Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‐29, s. 10(1),(3),(4), 10(4.1) — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 2(1) — Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44, s. 2(e). Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Life, liberty and security — Immigration — Revocation of citizenship — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 — Citizenship Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‐29, s. 10(1),(3),(4), 10(4.1) — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 2(1) — Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44, s."},{"title":"Lavallee, Rackel Heintz c. Canada (Procureur g Baker c. Canada (Procureur g https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/2002/index.do 2002-09-12 R. c. Wilson - 2025 CSC 32 - 2025-10-24 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21249/index.do 2025-10-24 Emond c. Trillium Mutual Insurance Co. - 2026 CSC 3 - 2026-01-30 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21354/index.do 2026-01-30 Harper c. Canada (Procureur g https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/2146/index.do 2004-05-18 R. c. Underwood - 2025 CSC 14 - 2025-04-17 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20971/index.do 2025-04-17 R. c. Hussein - 2026 CSC 2 - 2026-01-23 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21347/index.do 2026-01-23 Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada c. Courtois - [1988] 1 RCS 868 - 1988-05-26 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/327/index.do 1988-05-26 R. c. B.B. - 2026 CSC 1 - 2026-01-22 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21346/index.do 2026-01-22 Conseil canadien pour les r https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19957/index.do 2023-06-16 R. c. Spence - 2005 CSC 71 - [2005] 3 RCS 458 - 2005-12-02 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/2253/index.do 2005-12-02 R. c. Chatillon - 2023 CSC 7 - [2023] 1 RCS 306 - 2023-03-15 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19772/index.do 2023-03-15 R. c. Downes - 2023 CSC 6 - [2023] 1 RCS 277 - 2023-03-10 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19734/index.do 2023-03-10 R. c. Metzger - 2023 CSC 5 - [2023] 1 RCS 267 - 2023-03-03 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19677/index.do 2023-03-03 R. c. McGregor - 2023 CSC 4 - [2023] 1 RCS 198 - 2023-02-17 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19693/index.do 2023-02-17 R. c. Hilbach - 2023 CSC 3 - [2023] 1 RCS 116 - 2023-01-27 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19639/index.do 2023-01-27 R. c. Hills - 2023 CSC 2 - [2023] 1 RCS 6 - 2023-01-27 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19638/index.do 2023-01-27 R. c. S.S. - 2023 CSC 1 - [2023] 1 RCS 3 - 2023-01-10 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19607/index.do 2023-01-10 Telus Communications Inc. c. F https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20977/index.do 2025-04-25 Sainte https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21323/index.do 2025-12-19 R. c. Bilodeau - 2025 CSC 2 - 2025-02-19 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20846/index.do 2025-02-19 R. c. Donawa - 2025 CSC 10 - 2025-03-26 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20932/index.do 2025-03-26 R. c. Carignan - 2025 CSC 43 - 2025-12-12 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21317/index.do 2025-12-12 Alberta c. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony - 2009 CSC 37 - [2009] 2 RCS 567 - 2009-07-24 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/7808/index.do 2009-07-24 R. c. DeSutter - 2025 CSC 42 - 2025-12-05 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21303/index.do 2025-12-05 Brunette c. Legault Joly Thiffault, s.e.n.c.r.l. - 2018 CSC 55 - [2018] 3 RCS 481 - 2018-12-07 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/17404/index.do 2018-12-07 Black c. Law Society of Alberta - [1989] 1 RCS 591 - 1989-04-20 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/432/index.do 1989-04-20 R. c. Vrbanic - 2025-12-04 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21302/index.do 2025-12-04 R. c. B.F. - 2025 CSC 41 - 2025-12-05 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21301/index.do 2025-12-05 R. c. Ouellet - 2025 CSC 40 - 2025-12-03 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21295/index.do 2025-12-03 R. c. Beaver - 2022 CSC 54 - [2022] 3 RCS 718 - 2022-12-09 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19588/index.do 2022-12-09 R. c. Vernelus - 2022 CSC 53 - [2022] 1 RCS 715 - 2022-12-06 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19589/index.do 2022-12-06 R. c. Furey - 2022 CSC 52 - [2022] 1 RCS 711 - 2022-12-02 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19587/index.do 2022-12-02 F. c. N. - 2022 CSC 51 - [2022] 3 RCS 616 - 2022-12-02 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19572/index.do 2022-12-02 R. c. D.R. - 2022 CSC 50 - [2022] 3 RCS 613 - 2022-12-01 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19573/index.do 2022-12-01 R. c. Clark - 2022 CSC 49 - [2022] 3 RCS 611 - 2022-11-30 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19571/index.do 2022-11-30 Lundin Mining Corp. c. Markowich - 2025 CSC 39 - 2025-11-28 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21294/index.do 2025-11-28 R. c. Gladstone - [1996] 2 RCS 723 - 1996-08-21 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/1409/index.do 1996-08-21 Canada (Bureau de la s https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19563/index.do 2022-11-25 R. c. Dare - 2022 CSC 47 - [2022] 3 RCS 510 - 2022-11-24 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19558/index.do 2022-11-24 R. c. Haniffa - 2022 CSC 46 - [2022] 3 RCS 504 - 2022-11-24 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19557/index.do 2022-11-24 R. c. Jaffer - 2022 CSC 45 - [2022] 3 RCS 496 - 2022-11-24 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19556/index.do 2022-11-24 R. c. Ramelson - 2022 CSC 44 - [2022] 3 RCS 450 - 2022-11-24 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19555/index.do 2022-11-24 Nova Chemicals Corp. c. Dow Chemical Co. - 2022 CSC 43 - [2022] 3 RCS 350 - 2022-11-18 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19554/index.do 2022-11-18 Des Groseillers c. Qu https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19552/index.do 2022-11-17 Peace River Hydro Partners c. Petrowest Corp. - 2022 CSC 41 - [2022] 3 RCS 265 - 2022-11-10 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19541/index.do 2022-11-10 R. c. Doxtator - 2022 CSC 40 - [2022] 3 RCS 263 - 2022-11-09 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19551/index.do 2022-11-09 R. c. Sharma - 2022 CSC 39 - [2022] 3 RCS 147 - 2022-11-04 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19540/index.do 2022-11-04 R. c. Ndhlovu - 2022 CSC 38 - [2022] 3 RCS 52 - 2022-10-28 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19538/index.do 2022-10-28 R. c. Nahanee - 2022 CSC 37 - [2022] 3 RCS 3 - 2022-10-27 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19535/index.do 2022-10-27 Dorsey c. Canada (Procureur g https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21282/index.do 2025-11-21 R. c. Rousselle - 2025 CSC 35 - 2025-11-14 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21267/index.do 2025-11-14 R. c. Larocque - 2025 CSC 36 - 2025-11-14 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21268/index.do 2025-11-14 R. c. Rioux - 2025 CSC 34 - 2025-11-07 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21256/index.do 2025-11-07 Barendregt c. Grebliunas - 2022 CSC 22 - [2022] 1 RCS 517 - 2022-05-20 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19396/index.do 2022-05-20 R. c. Brown - 2022 CSC 18 - [2022] 1 RCS 374 - 2022-05-13 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19389/index.do 2022-05-13 R. c. G.F. - 2021 CSC 20 - [2021] 1 RCS 801 - 2021-05-14 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/18884/index.do 2021-05-14 R. c. I.M. - 2025 CSC 23 - 2025-07-18 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21131/index.do 2025-07-18 Qu https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21250/index.do 2025-10-31 R. c. Di Paola - 2025 CSC 31 - 2025-10-17 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20845/index.do 2025-10-17 Bell Canada c. Qu https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/326/index.do 1988-05-26 Burton Parsons Chemicals, Inc. c. Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd. - [1976] 1 RCS 555 - 1974-12-19 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/6248/index.do 1974-12-19 Blencoe c. Colombie-Britannique (Human Rights Commission) - 2000 CSC 44 - [2000] 2 RCS 307 - 2000-10-05 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/1808/index.do 2000-10-05 R. c. Sheppard - 2025 CSC 29 - 2025-09-26 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20972/index.do 2025-09-26 Kosicki c. Toronto (Cit https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21211/index.do 2025-09-19 R. c. R.A. - 2025 CSC 7 - 2025-03-20 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20910/index.do 2025-03-20 R. c. Chizanga - 2025 CSC 9 - 2025-03-24 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20911/index.do 2025-03-24 R. c. Kwon - 2025 CSC 11 - 2025-03-27 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20933/index.do 2025-03-27 Sinclair c. Venezia Turismo - 2025 CSC 27 - 2025-07-31 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21150/index.do 2025-07-31 R. c. J.W. - 2025 CSC 16 - 2025-05-23 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21061/index.do 2025-05-23 R. c. Bouvette - 2025 CSC 18 - 2025-06-06 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21090/index.do 2025-06-06 Dunmore c. Mehralian - 2025 CSC 20 - 2025-06-20 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20773/index.do 2025-06-20 R. c. Varennes - 2025 CSC 22 - 2025-07-11 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21126/index.do 2025-07-11 R. c. S.B. - 2025 CSC 24 - 2025-07-18 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21130/index.do 2025-07-18 R. c. Bharwani - 2025 CSC 26 - 2025-07-25 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21149/index.do 2025-07-25 R. c. Parranto - 2021 CSC 46 - [2021] 3 RCS 366 - 2021-11-12 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/19074/index.do 2021-11-12","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/rss.do","id":2721075},{"title":"Committal for Contempt of Court: Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council -v- Sean Soley","description":"Case Number: L00WJ873 In the County Court at Dudley 23 February 2026 Before: District Judge Moan Between: Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council -v- Sean Soley Judgment The applications 1. Dudley MBC, the Claimant, made an application for an injunction on 20 th September 2024 against the Defendant, Mr Soley, pursuant to the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. On 24 th September 2024 an interim injunction was made against the Defendant on an urgent basis without notice to him. A copy of that injunction can be found on page 177 of the bundle but in summary, the injunction prohibited the Defendant from causing nuisance or annoyance to anyone who resides, visits or is engaged in an activity within the Broadway, the prohibition of use or storage of any explosive substance, and a prohibition against being abusive or a nuisance towards the Claimant’s employees or contractors. At that stage the Defendant was a secure tenant of the Claimant and lived in The Broadway in Norton. On 17 th January 2025 the Court amended the injunction because a possession order had been granted to the Claimant in respect of the Defendant’s rented accommodation and the amended provisions additionally prohibited the Defendant from entering or remaining within The Broadway. 2. The Claimant made an application for contempt dated 23 rd April 2025. That application was amended on 13 th November 2025 to include further alleged breaches committed during the currency of the proceedings. A hearing took place on 9 th January 2026 to determine whether the interim injunction should be made final and whether the Defendant had breached the interim injunction. Background to the injunction application 3. The Defendant had been a secure tenant since 20 th December 2006. In the injunction application the Claimant described the Defendant as aggressive towards the Claimant’s employees over the telephone and in-person. Examples were given of incidents between April 2015 to September 2024 of abusive behaviour including racist remarks, keeping weapons at his home address and using explosive devices in the vicinity of the property. Facebook posts by the Defendant with photographs and concerning comments underpinned the concern of the Claimant about what substances the Defendant was experimenting with, in and outside his property. The local authority wrote to the Defendant in June 2022 and October 2023 highlighting the behaviour that they considered to be unacceptable and that if this behaviour persisted a possession Order may be sought. 4. Whilst an interim injunction had been granted, as amended, the Facebook posts continued to harass the Council and in particular the housing officer that he named in those posts. The breaches of the injunction 5. The breaches of the injunction are summarised as follows: i) Breach 1 – a Facebook post dated 11 th March 2025 where he referred to the local authority as lying, antisocial and being corrupt. He also named the housing officer as stalking his Facebook profile. ii) Breach 2 – A Facebook post dated 17 th March 2025 where he claimed that the council lied in Court on more than one occasion and described them as corrupt horrible scummy bastards and corrupt twats. He named the same housing officer by surname and referred to her looking worried when he last saw her. iii) Breach 3 – A Facebook post dated 5 th July 2025 where he exhibited a photograph of documents in the proceedings and referred to the local authority as being corrupt and as narcissistic dictating Nazi Dudley Council who were stalking him. He said that since the named housing officer started working at the Council they had “gone to proper shit”, literally lying about people and faking evidence. The council had become corrupt tyrants and that was the consequence of letting migrants run anything. iv) Breach 4 – A Facebook post dated 2 nd August 2025 where he described the named housing officer as the devil and evil, and that he was going to carve himself a witch. v) Breach 5 – A Facebook post dated 18 th","id":2721073,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/committal-for-contempt-of-court-dudley-metropolitan-borough-council-v-sean-soley/"},{"description":"Case number: AC-2025-LON-002122 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Divisional Court 25 February 2026 Before: The President of the King’s Bench Division The Hon. Mr Justice Swift The Hon. Mrs Justice Steyn DBE Between: The King on the application of Huda Ammori -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism Amnesty International UK Liberty (Interveners) Order UPON consideration of the Defendant’s decision to add Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations at Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”) on 14 May 2025 and re-taken on 20 June 2025 (“the Decision”) AND UPON consideration of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025 (“the 2025 Order”); AND UPON consideration of the Claimant’s application for judicial review filed on 27 June 2025 and issued on 30 June 2025; AND UPON consideration of the Orders previously made in this case by Chamberlain J AND UPON hearing leading and junior counsel for the Claimant, leading and junior counsel for the Defendant and leading counsel for the First Intervener on 26, 27 November and 2 December 2025 AND UPON the Court handing down judgment on 13 February 2026 AND UPON consideration of all documents filed with the court pursuant to the directions given on 13 February 2026 IT IS ORDERED THAT The Claimant’s claim is allowed on Ground 2 (so far as concerns articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR) and Ground 6, but refused on all other grounds. The Decision and the 2025 Order are quashed, subject to paragraph 3 below. The order at paragraph 2 above is stayed pending determination of the Defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, or further order. The Defendant’s application for permission to appeal is allowed. The Claimant’s application for permission to cross-appeal is refused. Subject to paragraph 7 below, the Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of and occasioned by the proceedings before the Administrative Court and the Divisional Court, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of the application for interim relief, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. The post Huda Ammori -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Huda Ammori -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/huda-ammori-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-4/","id":2721074},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-kai-pennell/","id":2719452,"title":"R -v- Kai Pennell","description":"At Cardiff Crown Court 24 February 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mrs Justice Stacey Between: R -v- Kai Pennell The post R -v- Kai Pennell appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"description":"In the Crown Court at Sheffield 25 February 2026 Sentencing remarks of The Recorder of Sheffield, His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC Between: R -v- Neil Trennan The post R -v- Neil Trennan appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- Neil Trennan","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-neil-trennan/","id":2719453},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-thomas-morgan/","id":2719454,"description":"At Swansea Crown Court 25 February 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mrs Justice Stacey Between: R -v- Thomas Morgan The post R -v- Thomas Morgan appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- Thomas Morgan"},{"id":2718922,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca37/2026fca37.html","title":"Speck v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 37 (CanLII)","description":"Judges and Courts — Stare decisis Administrative law — Judicial review —"},{"id":2718334,"link":"http://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2026/02/24/judiciary-says-courthouses-are-crisis-seeks-real-property-authority","description":"The condition of federal courthouses around the country is in a deepening state of crisis, compelling the Judiciary to ask Congress for authority to directly manage properties that are essential to carrying out its constitutional","title":"Judiciary Says Courthouses Are in Crisis, Seeks Real Property Authority"},{"id":2718333,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rupert-lowe-mp-v-the-independent-complaints-and-grievance-scheme-2/","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 406 (Admin) Case No: AC-2025-LON-003806 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 24 February 2026 Before: Mr Justice Chamberlain Between: The King on the application of Rupert Lowe MP -v- The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme and MIC (Interested party) The post Rupert Lowe MP -v- The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Rupert Lowe MP -v- The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme"},{"title":"R -v- Khan and Rahman","description":"In the Crown Court at Birmingham 24 February 2026 Sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Andrew Smith KC Between: R -v- Hamza Khan Mohammed Rahman The post R -v- Khan and Rahman appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2716257,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-khan-and-rahman/"},{"description":"Income tax — Income calculation — Deductions — Capital gain — anti-avoidance rule — Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th SUPP.) ( qualifié), s.","title":"Canada v. DAC Investment Holdings Inc., 2026 FCA 35 (CanLII)","id":2715683,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca35/2026fca35.html"},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/16693/index.do","id":2715318,"title":"R. c. Cody - 2017 CSC 31 - [2017] 1 RCS 659 - 2017-06-16","description":"Droit constitutionnel Document mis-à-jour le"},{"title":"R -v- Jose Zamora","description":"In the Crown Court at Southwark 23 February 2026 Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Picken Between: R -v- Jose Zamora The post R -v- Jose Zamora appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-jose-zamora/","id":2715316},{"description":"In the Planning Court 20 February 2026 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Mould Between: Crowborough Shield Community Interest Company -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wealden District Council Secretary of State for Defence Order Any request by a person not taking part in the proceedings (“an applicant”) for a direction under s.85A(3)(b) Courts Act 2003 for permission to watch or listen to the hearing remotely (“a transmission direction request”) must be made in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this Order by 12pm on Tuesday 24 February 2026. Transmission directions requests must be sent to the following address: adminstrativecourtoffice.listoffice@justice.gov.uk and must include the following – a) The full name of the applicant; b) The email address of the applicant c) Information as to whether the applicant would be located within the jurisdiction of England and Wales at all times when observing the Hearing remotely (if a transmission direction were to be made); and if not, details of the applicant’s location; d) Any particular information the applicant wishes to provide in support of the request, including in particular any reason(s) why it is said that making such a direction would be in the interests of justice; and e) A statement by the applicant in the following terms: “I agree and undertake to the Court that if permitted to observe the Hearing remotely, I will not make a recording, capture images, and/or broadcast any part of the proceedings. I understand that to do so may be an offence and/or contempt of court, punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine. I will abide by any directions given to me by the Court during the Hearing. “I agree and undertake to the Court that I will not provide the link that I am given to access the Hearing to any other person.” A transmission direction request that is not made by the deadline imposed by Paragraph 1 of this Order and/or does not comply with Paragraph 3 of this Order may be refused. Any transmission direction request made otherwise than in accordance with the directions in Paragraph 1 and 2 must be made by way of Application Notice. The post Crowborough Shield Community Interest Company -v- Home Secretary and Housing Secretary appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Crowborough Shield Community Interest Company -v- Home Secretary and Housing Secretary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/crowborough-shield-community-interest-company-v-home-secretary-and-housing-secretary/","id":2713636},{"title":"Tsawout First Nation v. Claxton, 2026 FCA 34 (CanLII)","description":"Federal Court jurisdiction — Trial Division — Real property — Aboriginal law — Land management Landlord and tenant — Motion for judicial review Practice —","id":2710230,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca34/2026fca34.html"},{"title":"Suncor Énergie Inc. c. Canada, 2026 CAF 33 (CanLII)","description":"société en commandite — biens amortissables — réorganisation papillon — contribuable — être mis en","id":2710229,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2026/2026caf33/2026caf33.html"},{"id":2709609,"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21398/index.do","description":"Nouveau document publié le","title":"R. c. Case - 2026 CSC 6 - 2026-02-19"},{"description":"In the Crown Court at Cardiff 20 February 2026 Sentencing remarks of HHJ Daniel Williams Between: R -v- Thisara Weragalage The post R -v- Thisara Weragalage appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- Thisara Weragalage","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-thisara-weragalage/","id":2709604},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-marcus-staniforth-and-msl/","id":2709605,"title":"R -v- Marcus Staniforth and MSL","description":"At Cardiff Crown Court 20 February 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Griffiths Between: R -v- Marcus Staniforth and MSL The post R -v- Marcus Staniforth and MSL appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"title":"Re: Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach)","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWFC 38 Case No: ME25P00554 In the Family Court 20 February 2026 Before: Rt Hon Sir Andrew McFarlane President of the Family Division Regarding: Re: Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) The post Re: Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2709606,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/re-y-experts-and-alienating-behaviour-the-modern-approach/"},{"id":2709607,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/mazur-and-others-v-charles-russell-speechlys-llp/","title":"Mazur and others -v- Charles Russell Speechlys LLP","description":"Claim number: CA-2025-002754 In the Court of Appeal on appeal from the King’s Bench, High Court 20 February 2026 Before: The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos The Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Colin Birss Lady Justice Andrews Between: CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EXECUTIVES -and- JULIA MAZUR JEROME STUART and CHARLES RUSSELL SPEECHLYS LLP -and- THE SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY LAW SOCIETY OF ENGLAND AND WALES and CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EXECUTIVES -and- THE LEGAL SERVICE BOARD THE LAW CENTRES FEDERATION T/A THE LAW CENTRES NETWORK THE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS Order UPON the hearing of this appeal having been fixed for Monday 23 February 2026 AND UPON the Court anticipating that persons not taking part in the proceedings are likely to wish to observe the hearing remotely and to request a transmission direction to enable them to do so WITHOUT A HEARING and of the court’s own initiative IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Any request by a person not taking part in the proceedings (“an applicant”) for a direction under s.85A(3)(b) Courts Act 2003 for permission to watch or listen to the hearing remotely (“a transmission direction request”) must be made (in accordance with Paragraph 2 below). 2. Any transmission direction request must be sent to Civilappeals.listing@justice.gov.uk and must include the following: a. the full name of the applicant; b. the email address of the applicant; c. information as to whether the applicant would be located within the jurisdiction of England and Wales at all times when attending the hearing remotely (if a transmission direction were to be made); and, if not, details of the applicant’s location; d. any information the applicant wishes to provide in support of the request, including in particular any reason(s) why it is contended that making such a direction would be in the interests of justice; and e. a statement by the applicant in the following terms: “I agree and undertake to the Court that, if permitted to observe the appeal remotely, I will not make a recording, capture images, and/or broadcast any part of the proceedings. I understand that to do so may be an offence and/or contempt of court, punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine. I will abide by any directions given to me by the Court. I agree and undertake to the Court that I will not provide any other person with the link that I am given to access the appeal hearing.” 3. A transmission direction request that does not comply with Paragraph 2 of this Order may be refused. Any transmission direction request made otherwise than in accordance with the directions in Paragraphs 1 and 2 must be made by way of Application Notice. Reasons (A) The current case is of great public interest. (B) The Court anticipates there is likely to be interest from media representatives and members of the public in observing the appeal remotely. To manage the process, we have taken the initiative to set out a straightforward procedure whereby anyone who wishes to do so can make a transmission direction request. (C) The Court will not normally grant a transmission direction request in respect of an applicant who will not be in England & Wales during the hearing. Anyone making a transmission direction request who will not be in England & Wales should provide information (pursuant to paragraph 2(d) above) as to why it would nevertheless be in the interests of justice to make a transmission direction order in their case. The post Mazur and others -v- Charles Russell Speechlys LLP appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"id":2709110,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2026/2026scc6/2026scc6.html","description":"Copyright —","title":"R. v. Case, 2026 SCC 6 (CanLII)"},{"title":"Titan Wealth Holdings Limited and others -v- Marian Atinuke Okunola","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Civ 138 Appeal No: CA-2024-002483 Claim No: KB-2024-000960 In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Mrs Justice Hill [2024] EWHC 2641 (KB) 20 February 2026 Before: Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls Lord Justice Warby Lady Justice Whipple Between: Titan Wealth Holdings Limited Titan Settlement & Custody Limited Gretchen Roberts Tiffany Roberts -v- Marian Atinuke Okunola The post Titan Wealth Holdings Limited and others -v- Marian Atinuke Okunola appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/titan-wealth-holdings-limited-and-others-v-marian-atinuke-okunola-2/","id":2708082},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/guy-carpenter-company-limited-and-others-v-willis-limited-and-others/","id":2708083,"title":"Guy Carpenter & Company Limited and others -v- Willis Limited and others","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 361 (KB) Case No: KB-2025-002338 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division 20 February 2026 Before: Mr Justice Birt Between: (1) GUY CARPENTER & COMPANY LIMITED (2) MARSH SERVICES LIMITED (3) MARSH LIMITED (4) GUY CARPENTER BERMUDA LTD (a Bermuda Company) -v- (1) WILLIS LIMITED (2) WILLIS GROUP LIMITED (3) MARTINO UK OPERATING COMPANY LIMITED (as of 14 July 2025 WILLIS RE UK LIMITED) (4) MARTINO HOLDINGS LIMITED (as of 14 July 2025 WILLIS RE HOLDINGS LIMITED) (5) WILLIS RE (BERMUDA) LIMITED (a Bermuda Company) (6) MS LUCY CLARKE (7) MR JAMES SUMMERS (8) MR JOHN FLETCHER The post Guy Carpenter & Company Limited and others -v- Willis Limited and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"title":"British Medical Association -v- General Medical Council","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Civ 143 Case No: CA-2025-001097 In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) Mrs Justice Lambert [2025] EWHC 960 (Admin) 20 February 2026 Before: Lord Justice Coulson Lord Justice Jeremy Baker Lord Justice Cobb Between: British Medical Association -v- General Medical Council and (1) Association of Anaesthesia Associates (2) Royal College of Physicians (3) Royal College of Anaesthetists (4) Anaesthetist United (5) NHS England (6) Secretary of State for Health & Social Care (Interested parties) The post British Medical Association -v- General Medical Council appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2708084,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/british-medical-association-v-general-medical-council-2/"},{"description":"Practice — Dismissal for undue delay — Motion to dismiss for delay — Federal Court Rules, r. 167, Rule","title":"Boulachanis v. Canada, 2026 FCA 32 (CanLII)","id":2707515,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca32/2026fca32.html"}]