[{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 1733 (Admin) Case No: AC-2026-LON-002801 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 9 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Johnson Between: The King on the application of Gatwick Airport Limited -v- Secretary of State for Transport and British Airways Plc TUI Airways (Interested parties) and International Air Transport Association (Intervener) The post Gatwick Airport Limited -v- Secretary of State for Transport appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/gatwick-airport-limited-v-secretary-of-state-for-transport-2/","title":"Gatwick Airport Limited -v- Secretary of State for Transport","id":3020592},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-hauser-and-wirth-gallery-limited-and-another/","title":"R -v- Hauser and Wirth Gallery Limited and another","id":3020591,"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCR 7 Case Number: T20250107 In the Crown Court at Southwark 9 July 2026 Before: His Honour Judge Baumgartner The Hon Recorder of Westminster Between: Rex -v- Hauser and Wirth Gallery Limited Artay Rauchwerger Solomons Limited The post R -v- Hauser and Wirth Gallery Limited and another appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"title":"Whitelaw v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 126 (CanLII)","id":3017421,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca126/2026fca126.html","description":"Administrative law — Judicial review Human rights — Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, s."},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca127/2026fca127.html","id":3017422,"title":"Brick v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 127 (CanLII)","description":"Administrative law — Judicial review — Denial of right to counsel — Parole — Recalculation of Parole — Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 129(3)(b),(3.1) Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Life, liberty and"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/exr-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department/","title":"EXR -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department","id":3017049,"description":"Case No: AC-2025-LON-004527 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 8 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Fordham Between: The King on the application of EXR -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Order Of the Court’s own motion Public notice that judgment in this case is to be handed down remotely at 10:00am on Friday 10 July 2026 is to be given by publication of this order on the Judiciary website. This case involves the Treaty between the UK and France on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys. One of the issues that will be decided is the standard of review that governs the lawfulness of a decision to treat an individual as an adult when determining a human trafficking claim. The judgment to be handed down is the sequel to [2026] EWHC 1568 (Admin). The post EXR -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/janet-fuschillo-and-others-v-johnson-and-johnson-and-others/","title":"Janet Fuschillo and others -v- Johnson and Johnson and others","id":3015559,"description":"Claim Numbers: KB-2026-000030 KB-2026-000032 KB-2026-001931 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING’S BENCH DIVISION 8 July 2026 BEFORE: MRS JUSTICE HILL DBE BETWEEN: JANET FUSCHILLO and others -v- (1) JOHNSON & JOHNSON (2) JOHNSON & JOHNSON MANAGEMENT LIMITED (3) KENVUE UK LIMITED Order UPON a Group Litigation Order having been made in this case on 10 June 2026 AND UPON the Court having directed that a case management hearing shall take place on Monday 20 July 2026 AND UPON the Court considering that it is likely that persons not taking part in the proceedings may wish to attend the case management hearing remotely IT IS ORDERED that: 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 case management hearing remotely (“a transmission direction request”) must be made (in accordance with Paragraph 2 below) by 10.30 am on Tuesday 14 July 2026. Any transmission direction request must be sent to kbjudgeslistingoffice@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 case management 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 attend each day of the case management 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 case management hearing. I agree and undertake to the Court that I will not provide the link that I am given to access the Case management 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 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 By these proceedings a large number of Claimants bring claims for damages against the Defendants arising out of the use of Baby Powder, a talc-based cosmetic powder. The Court anticipates that there may be interest from media representatives, other legal representatives and members of the public in attending the case management hearing remotely. To manage the process, a straightforward procedure whereby anyone who wishes to attend the hearing remotely can make a transmission direction request by email is appropriate. The Court will not normally grant a transmission direction request in respect of an applicant who will not be in England and Wales during the hearing. Anyone making a transmission direction request who will not be in England and 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 his/her case. Late requests, because they cause disruption to the Court’s work and utilise a disproportionate amount of the Court’s limited resources are likely to be refused, unless there are compelling reasons why the applicant was unable to comply with the Court’s directions. For the avoidance of doubt this order does not apply to the parties. The post Janet Fuschillo and others -v- Johnson and Johnson and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"title":"Bharat Hindu Samaj -v- Peterborough City Council","id":3014692,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/bharat-hindu-samaj-v-peterborough-city-council/","description":"Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000946 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 7 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Morris Between: The King on the application of Bharat Hindu Samaj -v- Peterborough City Council and United Kingdom Islamic Mission (Interested party) Order OF THE COURT’S OWN MOTION IT IS ORDERED THAT: Any request for a direction under s.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 the hearing of the above proceedings on 13 and 14 July 2026 must be made by 10am on Friday 10 July 2026. Any transmission direction request should be sent by email to the Administrative Court List Office at administrativecourtoffice.listoffice@justice.gov.uk and must include the following: 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 made by the applicant in the following terms: “If permitted to attend the hearing remotely, I understand and undertake to the Court that I will not make a recording, capture images, and/or broadcast any part of the proceedings. I understand that to do so would be an offence and may be a contempt of court, and that I may be punished if I were to do so”. Unless exceptionally the Court otherwise directs, a transmission direction request made otherwise than in accordance with this Order will not be granted. Reasons In this claim for judicial review, the Claimant operates a Hindu temple and community centre from property owned by Peterborough City Council, the Defendant. The Claimant challenges as being unlawful the Council’s decision to dispose of that property to a Muslim association, the Interested Party. This case has already attracted media attention and the attention of members of the public. At the last hearing of the case, there were multiple requests for remote attendance. The case may attract similar attention when the hearing resumes on 13 July 2026. Accordingly this Order is made to ensure that any transmission direct requests are made in a timely manner to enable them to be considered and determined prior to the hearing and to ensure that any such requests are accompanied by the necessary information. The post Bharat Hindu Samaj -v- Peterborough City Council appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"description":"Claim numbers: AC-2025-LON-004215 AC-2025-LON-004527 AC-2026-LON-000293 AC-2026-LON-000602 AC-2026-LON-000577 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 7 July 2026 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Sheldon Between: THE KING on the application of (1) KAG (2) EXR (3) GIP (4) HRE (5) AYA -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Order Of the Court’s own motion; Public notice that judgment in this case is to be handed down remotely at 10.30am on Friday 10 July 2026 is to be given by publication of this order on the Judiciary website. Reasons Judgment will be handed down on Friday 10 July 2026 in the cases of KAG, EXR, GIP, HRE, AYA v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Each of these cases involves the Treaty between the UK and France on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys. One of the common issues that will be decided is whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to amend statutory guidance under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to remove the right to request reconsideration of negative human trafficking decisions for those being removed to France under the Treaty. This order is being made so that persons who may be affected by the judgment are made aware that it will be handed down this week. The post KAG and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3014693,"title":"KAG and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/kag-and-others-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department/"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/lawrence-and-others-v-associated-newspapers-limited/","id":3014691,"title":"Lawrence and others -v- Associated Newspapers Limited","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 1637 (KB) Case No: KB-2022-003316 KB-2022-003317 KB-2022-003318 KB-2022-003340 KB-2022-003357 KB-2022-003404 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Media and Communications List 7 July 2026 Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin Between: (1) Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE (2) Elizabeth Hurley (3) Sir Elton John CH CBE (4) David Furnish (5) Sir Simon Hughes (6) Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex (7) Sadie Frost Law -v- Associated Newspapers Limited The post Lawrence and others -v- Associated Newspapers Limited appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"description":"Claim number: AC-2026-LON-002964 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 6 July 2026 Before: The Hon Mr Justice Butcher Between: The King on the application of Chinook Justice Campaign -v- Secretary of State for Defence Order Of the Court’s own motion Following consideration of the documents lodged and the Order of Mr Justice Bourne dated 26 May 2026 and the fixing of a renewal hearing on 14 July 2026 with a time estimate of 3 hours ORDER BY THE HON. Mr JUSTICE BUTCHER Any request for a direction under s. 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 the proceedings remotely must be made by 4 pm on Friday 10 July 2026. Any transmission direction request should be sent by email to the Administrative Court List Office at administrativecourtoffice.listoffice@justice.gov.uk and must include the following: (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 the Court that I will not make a recording, capture images, and/or broadcast any part of the proceedings. I understand that to do so would be an offence and may be a contempt of court, and that I may be punished if I were to do so.’ Unless exceptionally the Court otherwise directs, a transmission direction request made otherwise than in accordance with this Order will not be granted. The post Chinook Justice Campaign -v- Secretary of State for Defence appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"Chinook Justice Campaign -v- Secretary of State for Defence","id":3012943,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/chinook-justice-campaign-v-secretary-of-state-for-defence/"},{"description":"Case number: K00SS485 In the County Court at Southend 23 June 2026 Before: HHJ Duddridge sitting with Lay Assessor Balvinder Saund Between: Karim Annabi -v- Visitcrest Limited The post Karim Annabi -v- Visitcrest Limited appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/karim-annabi-v-visitcrest-limited/","id":3012944,"title":"Karim Annabi -v- Visitcrest Limited"},{"title":"TAE -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order)","id":3012945,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/tae-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-anonymity-order/","description":"UT ref: UA-2025-000878-AA In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber From the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) SC065/22/00572 Chester Decision date: 7 March 2025 9 June 2026 Before: Judith Butler, Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: TAE (Appellant) -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) Order NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It is ordered, under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the appellant. It is ordered that the appellant shall be known as TAE. It is ordered that the appellant’s representative shall be known as JET. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal for it to be varied or set aside. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales. REASONS This anonymity order is made at the Judge’s own motion. The evidence and information in this case includes sensitive medical information about the appellant and specific named medical conditions. I am satisfied on the basis of the material before me that their interests would be significantly harmed if anonymity were not granted. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by the final decision in this case being published online with the appellant’s name anonymised. I have considered whether there is any less restrictive measure that would still adequately protect the identified interests, but I am satisfied there is not, because they might interfere with how the reasoning in the decision is expressed. Anonymising the identity of the appellant does not interfere with how the reasoning is expressed. The appellant did not apply for an order but lodged their case at a time when social security decisions were informally anonymised. Given the matters set out above, I consider it appropriate to formalise that practice in this case without requiring an application for anonymity. The appellant is represented by a family member who shares the same surname. I have therefore decided to anonymise the name of the representative as well, to avoid jigsaw identification of the appellant. The letters ‘TAE’ and JET have been chosen randomly and do not relate to the names of either the appellant or their representative. Judith Butler Judge of the Upper Tribunal Authorised for issue: 9 June 2026 The post TAE -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"id":3012942,"title":"R -v- Salem Salem","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-salem-salem/","description":"In the Central Criminal Court 3 July 2026 Before: Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb Between: Rex -v- Salem Salem FITNESS TO PLEAD/STAND TRIAL Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s.4 The post R -v- Salem Salem appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"id":3012098,"title":"Saddle Lake Cree Nation #462 v. Collins, 2026 FCA 125 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca125/2026fca125.html","description":"Aboriginal peoples — Elections Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Democratic rights — Voting Elections — Voting Prohibition — S. 2(a) of Regulations not violating Charter, s."},{"description":"Judges and Courts — Federal Court Practice — Judgments and orders Construction of statutes — CSIS Act, s.","id":3012097,"title":"Canada (Attorney General) v. Almrei, 2026 FCA 124 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca124/2026fca124.html"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-brian-darby/","id":3006702,"title":"R -v- Brian Darby","description":"In the Crown Court at Wood Green 3 July 2026 Sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Law Between: The King -v- Brian Darby The post R -v- Brian Darby appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"description":"At Isleworth Crown Court 3 July 2026 Sentencing remarks of the Honourable Mrs Justice Cutts DBE Between: R -v- Lydia Suffield The post R -v- Lydia Suffield appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-lydia-suffield/","id":3006703,"title":"R -v- Lydia Suffield"},{"title":"R -v- Abdullah Bin Yasir","id":3006704,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-abdullah-bin-yasir/","description":"At the Central Criminal Court 3 July 2026 Sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Anthony Leonard KC Between: R -v- Abdullah Bin Yasir The post R -v- Abdullah Bin Yasir appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"description":"In the Central Criminal Court 2 July 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE Between: R -v- Muhammad Billal The post R -v- Muhammad Billal appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- Muhammad Billal","id":3006705,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-muhammad-billal/"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-george-stana-and-nandito-badea/","title":"R -v- George Stana and Nandito Badea","id":3006706,"description":"In the Central Criminal Court 3 July 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE Between: R -v- George Stana and Nandito Badea The post R -v- George Stana and Nandito Badea appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca118/2026fca118.html","title":"Jaszberenyi v. Heyder, 2026 FCA 118 (CanLII)","id":3004664,"description":"Judges and Courts — Stare decisis Practice — Evidence — Fresh"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca121/2026fca121.html","id":3004665,"title":"Viterra Canada Inc. v. Grain Workers' Union (International Longshoreman’s Warehousemen’s Union, Local 333), 2026 FCA 121 (CanLII)","description":"Contempt of Court — Procedural requirements Practice — Costs Labour relations — Grievances Practice — Judgments and orders — Contempt of"},{"description":"contrôle judiciaire — fédérale — épuisement — circonstances exceptionnelles —","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2026/2026caf123/2026caf123.html","id":3004666,"title":"Verreault c. Canada, 2026 CAF 123 (CanLII)"},{"description":"Case numbers: [2026] EWCA Crim 845 202601875 A1 202601873 A1 202601874 A1 In the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on appeal from the Crown Court at Southampton His Honour Judge Rowland 44SC0053025 2 July 2026 Before: The Lady Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill The Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Justice Edis, Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Ms Justice Norton Between: The King and X Y Z (References under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) The post X, Y and Z appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/x-y-and-z/","title":"X, Y and Z","id":3004318},{"description":"At Caernarfon Crown Court 2 July 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Nicklin Between: Rex -v- James Robert Hughes The post R -v- James Robert Hughes appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- James Robert Hughes","id":3004319,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-james-robert-hughes/"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/shakespeare-hillier-and-goodwin/","id":3004320,"title":"R -v- Shakespeare, Hillier and Goodwin","description":"At the Crown Court in Salisbury 2 July 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer Between: The King -v- Helen Shakespeare and Anthony Hillier and The King -v- Letisha Goodwin The post R -v- Shakespeare, Hillier and Goodwin appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"description":"The Crown Court at Sheffield 2 July 2026 Sentencing remarks of the Recorder of Sheffield, His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson KC Between: R -v- Yaqub Younis The post R -v- Yaqub Younis appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R -v- Yaqub Younis","id":3004321,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-yaqub-younis/"},{"description":"Case number: AC-2026-LON-000781 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 1 July 2026 Before: Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE Between: The King on the application of Sex Matters -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions The post Sex Matters -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sex-matters-v-the-director-of-public-prosecutions/","id":3003204,"title":"Sex Matters -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions"},{"id":3003205,"title":"Various claimants listed in the schedules to the claims -v- Entain Plc","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/various-claimants-listed-in-the-schedules-to-the-claims-v-entain-plc-2/","description":"CLAIM NO: FL-2024-000010 FL-2024-000011 FL-2025-000008 FL-2025-000009 FL-2025-000010 FL-2025-000017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES COMMERCIAL COURT (KBD) FINANCIAL LIST 16 June 2026 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TROWER SITTING IN PUBLIC (SUBJECT TO INTERIM REPORTING RESTRICTIONS BETWEEN: Various claimants listed in the schedules to the claims -v- Entain Plc The post Various claimants listed in the schedules to the claims -v- Entain Plc appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"title":"TG Jones High Street Limited: Summary of Reasons","id":3001868,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/tg-jones-high-street-limited-summary-of-reasons/","description":"Case No: CR-2026-002241 CR-2026-002874 In the High Court of Justice Chancery Division Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Companies List (ChD) Date: 1 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Hildyard In the matter of TG Jones High Street Limited And in the matter of TG Jones Retail Holdings Limited And in the matter of the Companies Act 2006 The post TG Jones High Street Limited: Summary of Reasons appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"description":"Case No: ZC26P00465 In the Family Court In the matter of S54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 In the matter of the Children Act 1989 In the matter of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 Date: 25 June 2026 Before : Mr Justice Peel Between : (1) PP (2) QQ – and – RR The post PP -v- QQ (leave to withdraw parental order application) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/pp-v-qq-leave-to-withdraw-parental-order-application/","id":3001869,"title":"PP -v- QQ (leave to withdraw parental order application)"},{"description":"Case No: CA-2025-000751 In The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) On Appeal from the High Court of Justice Kings Bench Division Media and Communications list Date: 01/07/2026 Before : Lord Justice Lewison Lord Justice Coulson and Lord Justice Warby Between : Dale Vince – and – Richard Tice The post Vince -v- Tice appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2999926,"title":"Vince -v- Tice","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/vince-v-tice/"},{"description":"Copyright — Infringement Practice —","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca122/2026fca122.html","title":"Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Apple Canada Inc., 2026 FCA 122 (CanLII)","id":2998091},{"link":"http://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2026/06/30/2025-wiretap-report-intercepts-and-convictions-fall","title":"2025 Wiretap Report: Intercepts and Convictions Fall","id":2997675,"description":"Federal and state courts reported a combined 24 percent decrease in authorized wiretaps in 2025, compared with 2024, according to the Judiciary’s 2025 Wiretap"},{"description":"At Cardiff Crown Court 24th June 2026 The King v (1) Joshua Gordon (2) Renaldo Baptiste (3) Marcus Huntley (4) Jordan Mills-Smith (5) Melissa Quailey-Dashper (6) Kristina Ginova Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Fordham The post R -v- Gordon Huntley, Baptiste, Mills-Smith, Quailey-Dashper and Ginova appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-gordon-huntley-baptiste-mills-smith-quailey-dashper-ginova/","id":2996049,"title":"R -v- Gordon Huntley, Baptiste, Mills-Smith, Quailey-Dashper and Ginova"},{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 1567 (Admin) Case No: AC-2025-LON-000396 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court 30 June 2026 Before: Mr Justice MacDonald Between: ATN -v- Wellbn Partnership and (1) ATT (By Her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) (2) NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board (3) NHS England (Interested parties) The post ATN -v- Wellbn Partnership appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"ATN -v- Wellbn Partnership","id":2996050,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/atn-v-wellbn-partnership/"},{"description":"In the Crown Court at Birmingham 29 June 2026 Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Wall Between: R -v- Jagger Strang The post R -v- Jagger Strang appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-jagger-strang/","title":"R -v- Jagger Strang","id":2996051},{"description":"Costs — Federal Courts Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, rr. 406, 400, 407,","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca120/2026fca120.html","title":"Fearing v. Gardaworld Cash Services Canada Corporation, 2026 FCA 120 (CanLII)","id":2994430},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/20392/index.do","id":2994098,"title":"Shot Both Sides c. Canada - 2024 CSC 12 - 2024-04-12","description":"Droit constitutionnel Droit des autochtones Document mis-à-jour le"},{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Civ 814 Case No: CA-2025-002741 In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Justin Turner KC, Professor David Ulph CBE and Hugh Kelly) [2025] CAT 49 29 June 2026 Before: Lord Justice Nugee Lord Justice Zacaroli Lord Justice Miles Between: David Alexander De Horne Rowntree -v- Performing Right Society Limited PRS For Music Limited The post David Alexander De Horne Rowntree -v- Performing Right Society Limited and another appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"David Alexander De Horne Rowntree -v- Performing Right Society Limited and another","id":2994096,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/david-alexander-de-horne-rowntree-v-performing-right-society-limited-and-another/"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/aubrey-weis-v-greater-manchester-combined-authority/","id":2994097,"title":"Aubrey Weis -v- Greater Manchester Combined Authority","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Civ 825 Case No: CA-2025-002176 In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the Competition Appeal Tribunal Hodge Malek KC (chair), Sir Iain McMillan CBE FRSE DL, Timothy Sawyer CBE [2025] CAT 41 29 June 2026 Before: Lord Justice Nugee Lord Justice Zacaroli Lord Justice Miles Between: Aubrey Weis -v- Greater Manchester Combined Authority The post Aubrey Weis -v- Greater Manchester Combined Authority appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/alexander-and-feldman-v-addleshaw-goddard-and-entain-privacy-order/","title":"Alexander and Feldman -v- Addleshaw Goddard and Entain (privacy order)","id":2991655,"description":"Claim number: BL-2025-000197 In the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Chancery Division 26 June 2026 Before: The Chancellor of the High Court Between: (1) Kenneth Alexander (2) Lee Feldman (Claimants) -v- (1) Addleshaw Goddard LLP (2) Entain Plc (Defendants) Order UPON the disclosure guidance hearing heard on 30 June 2026 (“ DGH ”) in these proceedings AND UPON the application of the Second Defendant dated 26 June 2026 that the DGH be heard at least partly in private pursuant to CPR 39.2(3)(a) and/or (c) and/or (g) AND UPON the Crown Prosecution Service (“ CPS ”) being represented at the DGH AND UPON hearing counsel for the Claimants, and counsel for each of the Defendants IT IS ORDERED THAT: The DGH shall be heard in private so far as necessary. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 above, the CPS has permission to attend the DGH in full. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales (which may be found at www.judiciary.uk). Any person who is not a party to these proceedings may apply to set aside or vary this Order. Costs in the case. The post Alexander and Feldman -v- Addleshaw Goddard and Entain (privacy order) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/4595/index.do","id":2988618,"title":"R. c. Giguère - [1983] 2 RCS 448 - 1983-11-24","description":"Droit criminel Document mis-à-jour le"},{"description":"Administrative law — Judicial review — Canada Pension Plan — Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8, ss. 42(2), 44(1)(b), 60(8) to (10). Pensions — Disability pensions — Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8, ss. 42(2), 44(1)(b), 60(8) to","id":2988005,"title":"Nelson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FCA 119 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca119/2026fca119.html"},{"description":"To fund the accelerated initiative to modernize and strengthen the security of its case management and public access system, the Judiciary is implementing a modest temporary increase in fees for electronic access to court records beginning on Jan. 1,","link":"http://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2026/06/26/judiciary-approves-funding-case-management-and-public-access-modernization","id":2987541,"title":"Judiciary Approves Funding for Case Management and Public Access Modernization"},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21558/index.do","id":2987540,"title":"Edmonton (Police Service) c. McKee - 2026 CSC 24 - 2026-06-26","description":"Droit criminel Nouveau document publié le"},{"id":2987539,"title":"R -v- Amardeep Singh","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-amardeep-singh/","description":"Woolwich Crown Court 26 June 2026 R -v- Amardeep Singh Sentencing Remarks of The Hon. Mr Justice Bryan The post R -v- Amardeep Singh appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"id":2987087,"title":"Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24 (CanLII)","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2026/2026scc24/2026scc24.html","description":"Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Criminal process — Administration of criminal law — Disclosure — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 — Police Service Regulation, Alta. Reg. 356/1990, s."},{"description":"In the Crown Court at Croydon 25 June 2026 The King -v- Harry Singh Purshotam Dhillon Bikramjit Brah Leandrea Lynch Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Cavanagh The post R v- Singh, Dhillon, Brah and Lynch appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","title":"R v- Singh, Dhillon, Brah and Lynch","id":2985860,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-singh-dhillon-brah-lynch/"},{"title":"A1 -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department","id":2985861,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/a1-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department/","description":"Case No: CA-2025-001384 In the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) On Appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Date: 26/06/2026 Before: Lord Justice Edis (Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division) Lord Justice Singh and Lord Justice Lewis Between : A1 - and – Secretary of State for the Home Department The post A1 -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/the-king-on-the-application-of-tate-v-director-of-public-prosecutions/","title":"The King (on the application of Tate) -v- Director of Public Prosecutions","id":2985862,"description":"Case No: AC-2025-LON-003270 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court Date: 26/06/2026 Before : Mr Justice Chamberlain Betwe en : The King on the application of (1) Andrew Emory Tate (2) Tristan Tate – and – Director of Public Prosecutions – and – Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police The post The King (on the application of Tate) -v- Director of Public Prosecutions appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2026/2026fca117/2026fca117.html","id":2984973,"title":"Bykov v. Canada, 2026 FCA 117 (CanLII)","description":"Costs — Federal Court Rules, rr. 400(1), 403, 402. Practice — Costs — S. 65(1) of the Supreme Court of Canada"},{"title":"Barclays and others -v- Financial Ombudsman Service Limited","id":2980574,"link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/barclays-and-others-v-financial-ombudsman-service-limited/","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 1555 (Admin) Case numbers: AC-2024-LON-003318 AC-2024-LON-003499 AC-2024-LON-003464 AC2024-LON-003282 Date: 24 June 2026 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court Before: Mr Justice Dexter Dias Between : (1) Barclays Bank UK PLC (2) National Westminster Bank PLC (3) Vanquis Bank Limited (4) Santander UK PLC -v- Financial Ombudsman Service Limited (FOS) The post Barclays and others -v- Financial Ombudsman Service Limited appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary"},{"description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 1556 (Admin) Case numbers: (1) AC-2025-LON-003791 (2) AC-2025-LON-003839 Date: 23 June 2026 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Planning Court Before : Mr Justice Mould Between : (1) Peter Barclay (2) Communities against Gatwick noise emissions – v – (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) Gatwick Airport Limited The post Peter Barclay -v- Secretary for State for Transport and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/peter-barclay-v-secretary-for-state-for-transport-and-others/","title":"Peter Barclay -v- Secretary for State for Transport and others","id":2979577},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21435/index.do","title":"R. c. Singer - 2026 CSC 8 - 2026-03-20","id":2978442,"description":"Droit constitutionnel Nouveau document publié le"},{"description":"déférer l affaire — contrôle judiciaire — ministre — abus —","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/caf/doc/2026/2026caf115/2026caf115.html","title":"Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile) c. Rodas Tejeda, 2026 CAF 115 (CanLII)","id":2977644},{"description":"Propriété intellectuelle Document mis-à-jour le","link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/2019/index.do","id":2977327,"title":"Harvard College c. Canada (Commissaire aux brevets) - 2002 CSC 76 - [2002] 4 RCS 45 - 2002-12-05"},{"description":"Case No: T2024 0175 / T2024 7092 In the Crown Court at Woolwich Date: 22 June 2026 Before: Mr Justice Johnson Between: The King – v – (1) Charlotte Head (2) Samuel Corner (3) Leona Kamio (4) Fatema Zainab Rajwani (5) Zoe Rogers (6) Jordan Devlin And in the matter of potential contempt proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC The post Re. Rajiv Menon KC appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2977323,"title":"Re. Rajiv Menon KC","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/re-rajiv-menon-kc/"},{"description":"In the Crown Court at Portsmouth Date: 22.06.26 R -v- Robert Keating Sentencing Remarks The post R -v- Robert Keating appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2977324,"title":"R -v- Robert Keating","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-robert-keating/"},{"description":"In the Crown Court at Wolverhampton 22 June 2026 R v Mohammed Azim Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Murray The post R -v- Mohammed Azim appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-mohammed-azim/","id":2977325,"title":"R -v- Mohammed Azim"},{"description":"Case No: HT-2024-000427 In the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Technology and Construction Court Date: 22 June 2026 Before : The Honourable Mr Justice Pepperall Between : Mullalley & Co. Limited – v – STO Limited STO SE & Co. KGaA The post Mullalley & Co. Limited -v- STO Limited and others appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":2977326,"title":"Mullalley & Co. Limited -v- STO Limited and others","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/mullalley-co-limited-v-sto-limited-and-others/"},{"description":"At Teesside Crown Court 18 June 2026 Mrs Justice Heather Williams Disposal R -v- Louise Cameron The post R -v- Louise Cameron appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","link":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-louise-cameron/","title":"R -v- Louise Cameron","id":2975870},{"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21399/index.do","title":"Québec (Procureur général) c. Kanyinda - 2026 CSC 7 - 2026-03-06","id":2971881,"description":"Droit constitutionnel Nouveau document publié le"},{"description":"Procédure civile Nouveau document publié le","title":"Resler c. Anglin - 2026 CSC 23 - 2026-06-19","id":2970972,"link":"https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/item/21546/index.do"}]