: Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCOP 29 (T3) Case No: 14028041 In the Court of Protection in the matter of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the matter of the Mental Health Act 1983 23 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Peel Between: Patricia (by her Accredited Legal Representative) -v- Cygnet Healthcare Ltd Patricia’s father Patricia’s mother Patricia’s aunt The post Re Patricia (MHA 1983 and s28 MCA 2005) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
: The Gardner presumption, also known as the pro-veteran canon, is a substantive canon of interpretation named after the Supreme Courtcase Brown v. Gardner. The canon instructs courts to construe ambiguous statutes concerning veterans’ benefits in favor of the veteran. While the canon today rarely acts as a tiebreaker, it has historically represented a strong congressional intent to care for veterans. The post Codify Gardner appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2172 (Admin) Case No: AC-2026-LON-002538 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Referral of a Release Decision pursuant to S.32ZAA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 14 August 2026 Before: Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE Between: Secretary of State for Justice -v- Glyn Razzell (HV4928) The post Secretary of State for Justice -v- Glyn Razzell appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
: Case No: CH-2025-000115 In the High Court of Justice Business and Property Division Appeals List On appeal from decision no. O/0257/25 of Allan James, Hearing Officer for the Registrar, dated 20 March 2025, under s76(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 Date: 23 October 2026 Before: Mr Justice Richards Between: Fifth Avenue Entertainment LLC -and- Commodore Entertainment Corporation The post Fifth Avenue Entertainment LLC -v- Commodore Entertainment Corporation appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
: Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2394 (Ch) Case No: CR-2025-004409 In the High Court of Justice Chancery Division Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Insolvency and Companies List (ChD) 21 September 2026 Before: Mr Justice Trower In the matter of Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery Limited (in liquidation) and in the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 Between: Glencore Energy UK Ltd -v- Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery Limited (in liquidation) The post Glencore Energy UK Ltd -v- Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery Limited (in liquidation) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
: By: Susannah Tredwell , Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP and James Bachmann , Instructional Librarian, Law Library, University of British Columbia Since 1988, when CALL/ACBD’s Copyright Committee was first set up, CALL/ACBD has advocated for its members' interests in the area of copyright. While the primary focus of CALL/ACBD’s copyright advocacy over the last few years has been on Crown copyright and primary law, CALL/ACBD has also made submissions about such areas as fair dealing and licencing. CALL/ACBD sees this work as not only supporting the needs of its members but also as serving the interests of access to justice as a whole. Continuing this work, on January 18, 2022 CALL/ACBD, along with Library Futures Institute, will act as an intervener in the Supreme Court of Canada case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, et al. v. Entertainment Software Association, et al. Kim Nayyer, CALL/ACBD’s President, and Robert Janes of JFK Law will be representing CALL[...]
: Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype lfair May 2, 2016 | 10:52AM Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype By Lesley Fair Animation fans remember the ballet-dancing pink hippos in Fantasia . In Egyptian mythology, the god of disorder was depicted as a red hippo. And many consumers – especially those already in financial distress – were drawn in by national TV and radio ads for BlueHippo, a company that claimed to finance the purchase of computers and other electronics for people with “less than perfect credit, bad credit, no credit.” A $13.4 million ruling by a United States District Judge in an FTC contempt action sends a message to hippos of all hues (and businesses) about the FTC’s commitment to effective order enforcement. In 2008, the FTC sued BlueHippo Funding and BlueHippo Capital for, among other things, not delivering ordered merchandise, failing to make disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, and illegally[...]
: Case number: AC-2026-LON-002515 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court In the matter of an application for judicial review 17 July 2026 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Sheldon Between: The King on the application of (1) RDS (2) Bayswater Support Group (Claimants) -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Defendant) and NHS England (Interested Party) Order Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12) Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply ORDER BY THE HON. Mr Justice Sheldon (1) Anonymity a. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998: i. the names of the First Claimant, his children and his former spouse are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; ii. the name of the chair of the Second Claimant, her children and any partner are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings [...]
: UT ref: UA-2026-000083-PIP In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber 28 October 2026 Before: Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anonymity Order Appellant: LC Respondents: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Tribunal venue: Scarborough Tribunal Case Nos: SC231/24/00181 Tribunal decision date: 29 August 2025 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(1)(b) 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 [...]
: The French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication (hereinafter ‘Arcom’), Having regard to Act No. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, as amended, on freedom of communication, in particular Articles 3-1 and 48 thereof; Having regard to the Decree of 13 November 1987, as amended, approving the terms of reference and specifications of Radio France and the National Audiovisual Institute; Having regard to Decree No. 2009-79 of 23 June 2009, as amended, laying down the terms of reference for the national broadcaster France Télévisions; Having regard to Decree No. 2012-85 of 25 January 2012, as amended, laying down the terms of reference of the national broadcasting organisation responsible for France’s international audiovisual services (France Médias Monde); Having regard to the submission of a case before the court on 20 July 2026 concerning a draft decree amending the terms of reference and specifications of the national broadcasting organisations; Having deliberated on 27 July 2026, issues th[...]
: We can’t go for that (no can do) lfair July 17, 2017 | 11:38AM We can’t go for that (no can do) By Lesley Fair Of course, phantom debt collection – the practice of pressuring people to pay “debts” they don’t owe – harms consumers. But as an FTC complaint demonstrates, when phantom debt collectors strike, they could affect your company, too. According to the FTC , a Florida-based outfit engaged in a scheme to defraud consumers through the collection of debts people didn’t actually owe or the company didn’t have the authority to collect. The complaint charges that the defendants – Hardco Holding Group, S & H Financial Group, Dequan M. Sicard, and Daryl M. Hall (no, not that Daryl Hall) – violated the FTC Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. When contacting consumers, in many instances the defendants allegedly impersonated attorneys and threatened to have people thrown in jail if they didn’t pay up on delinquent payday loans – loans, remember, that many consumers didn’t take out in the first place and de[...]