The High Court allowed a widower to inherit his late wife's estate despite accompanying her to a euthanasia clinic, citing compassion, lack of moral culpability, and informed consent. The judgment clarified "assisting suicide" under related legal precedents.

The High Court ruled that family courts cannot influence Home Office immigration decisions, even if in the child's best interest. Clarifying a child's immigration status early in care proceedings is crucial, as family courts' authority is limited to disclosing relevant documents.

The Court of Protection ruled in favor of continuing haemodialysis for a 66-year-old dementia patient, emphasizing the strong presumption to sustain life, considering religious beliefs, family perspectives, and the patient's quality of life.

The High Court approved restructuring the Portman Estate's complex trust and partnership assets into a single limited company. The decision emphasized thorough consultation, managing beneficiary conflicts, and utilizing Trustee Act 1925 powers to maintain estate integrity and flexibility.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the distinction between Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996. It clarified that fulfilling homelessness criteria under Section 175 does not automatically require accommodation under Section 20. The judgment highlights the distinct legal purposes of these provisions and reinforces the local authority's discretion in accommodation decisions.

This Supreme Court judgement might be one of the most anticipated for those interested in contentious probate.

The Court removed the executor due to his failure to address a serious conflict of interest arising between his personal interests and his role as executor for a period of over ten years and also for the potentially...

The High Court ruled that private care providers are not public authorities under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 unless publicly funded. It reaffirmed the difficulty of invoking HRA claims against private entities, emphasizing the high bar for Article 2 applicability in negligence cases.

The First-tier Tax Tribunal was asked to consider the application of the intermediaries' legislation (IR35) called off-payroll working to payments made by Manchester United Football Club (MUFC) to Bryan Robson Ltd.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) had to determine the habitual residence of a newborn child to determine which council was responsible for the care of a baby born prematurely.

The High Court was faced with tragic circumstances and the difficult question of whether EF could use an embryo created with his sperm and his late wife's eggs in treatment with a surrogate.

The High Court quashed a lower court's decision to allow unsupervised contact due to serious procedural errors, including insufficient examination of evidence, risk of harm to the children, and improper delegation to a social worker. Children's safety remains paramount.

The Upper Tribunal (UT) was asked whether a contribution to an employee benefit trust (EBT) made by a company constitutes ‘taxable earnings'.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) heard an appeal regarding an 18-month-old boy and whether delaying the procedure longer to allow a full assessment of the aunt and uncle...

The Court of Appeal overturned a financial remedy order, emphasizing the critical duty of full financial disclosure in divorce proceedings. A misrepresentation by the wife regarding accessible Singapore assets justified rehearing, clarifying appeals on misrepresentation grounds.

The High Court was faced with a peculiar set of facts in which the biological father, who is also one of the applicants, was known but the biological mother was not.

The High Court, embroiled in longstanding litigation, had to determine whether equitable compensation for the breaches was owed and, if so, the quantum due.

The children, aged 11 and 9, were placed under a care order by DJ Solomon in the Family Court on 9 June 2023 under Section 31 of the Children Act (CA) 1989. The parents are not married and do not live together.

The High Court considered a claim that HMRC breached the subject access rights (SAR) of the claimant under the UK General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) clarified that adoption orders may generally only be set aside on appeal and that the High Court does not have the inherent power to revoke an adoption order.