Jess Glass

COH Sports, the company linked to Sheffield United co-chairmen Steven Rosen and Helmy Eltoukhy, has been wound up by the High Court following a petition from former owner United World over more than £35 million allegedly owed from the club’s sale. The English Football League is assessing whether the development breaches ownership regulations and could impose a 12-point deduction. Sheffield United says its daily operations are unaffected, but the potential sanction would significantly damage its hopes of promotion.

Oxfordshire County Council obtained a High Court injunction prohibiting unauthorised individuals from attaching flags to lampposts or painting insignia on roads. The court cited safety, trespass and obstruction concerns, with breaches potentially leading to asset seizures, unlimited fines or imprisonment. The action follows months of Union and St George’s Cross flag displays linked to Operation Raise The Colours, amid reports that council workers faced abuse and intimidation while removing them. Three associated individuals gave undertakings to stop the activity, while a separate injunction was issued against Kevin Good.

Oxfordshire County Council has obtained a High Court injunction preventing unidentified individuals from attaching flags to highway structures or painting insignia on roads. Breaching the order could result in asset seizures, unlimited fines or imprisonment. The council cited safety risks, obstruction, abuse and intimidation of workers and residents, while the judge said the activity had continued persistently with little prospect of stopping without an injunction. The case follows flag displays linked to the Operation Raise The Colours campaign and broader political debate over whether they represent patriotism or xenophobia. Three campaign-associated individuals gave undertakings not to participate in future flag-related activity, while an injunction was also issued against Kevin Good.

Prince Harry and six other prominent figures face a High Court decision on how much they must initially pay Associated Newspapers Limited after their lawsuit alleging unlawful information-gathering was dismissed. ANL says its legal costs exceed £34 million and is seeking more than £9.9 million, while the claimants argue that amount is excessive and propose just over £7.9 million. Mr Justice Nicklin is expected to rule next month on the interim payment and the process for assessing the final costs.

Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and four other claimants face a substantial legal bill after Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed their unlawful information-gathering claims against Associated Newspapers Limited. The publisher says its costs exceed £34 million and is seeking more than £9.9 million as an interim payment, while the claimants argue that just over £7.9 million is appropriate. The judge will issue a written ruling on the initial payment and the basis for assessing costs, with the claimants warning that an indemnity award could exceed their combined £16.2 million insurance cover.

Blur drummer David Rowntree has lost his appeal against the dismissal of a proposed legal claim on behalf of 160,000 songwriters concerning up to £200 million in unidentified “black box” royalties. Rowntree argued that PRS For Music disproportionately distributed these funds to publishers rather than songwriters. The Court of Appeal upheld the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s decision, ruling that Rowntree had not proposed a credible alternative distribution method against which PRS’s system could be judged as unfair. PRS welcomed the ruling and said the claim misrepresented its policies and was not in members’ interests.

Palestine Action began in 2020 with protests targeting defence-related companies and later escalated to raids, vandalism and alleged attacks on military and commercial property. Its 2023 Underground Manual provided guidance on forming cells, damaging property and publicizing actions. Following a 2025 incident in which two RAF Voyager aircraft were damaged, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper proscribed the group, making membership or support punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The High Court initially ruled the ban disproportionate, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, describing Palestine Action as a covert organization using secret cells and violence to destroy property and cause injury. Founder Huda Ammori said she would pursue further appeals.

The Court of Appeal will hold a two-day hearing beginning 1 July to review the non-custodial sentences given to three teenage boys convicted in connection with the rape of two girls in Fordingbridge, Hampshire. Two 15-year-olds received three-year youth rehabilitation orders with intensive supervision, while a third boy, aged 14, received an 18-month order. The sentences were referred under the unduly lenient scheme after concerns that offences crossing the custody threshold had not resulted in imprisonment. Judge Nicholas Rowland said youth custody should be a last resort and cited the defendants' ages, developmental needs and personal circumstances, including ADHD, anxiety and significant neurodevelopmental impairment.

Human rights barrister Rajiv Menon KC won his Court of Appeal challenge against a decision to summon him over alleged contempt of court during his closing speech in the trial of Palestine Action activists. The appeal judges found that the trial judge, Mr Justice Johnson, lacked the power to refer the allegation directly to the High Court. The matter will return to Johnson to determine whether further action, potentially involving the Attorney General, should be taken.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of human rights barrister Rajiv Menon KC, finding that the Crown Court judge who oversaw the trial of Palestine Action activists lacked the power to refer allegations that Menon had committed contempt of court directly to the High Court. The case must return to the trial judge, who may refer it to the Attorney General for consideration. The allegations arose from Menon’s closing speech during a trial over an invasion of an Elbit Systems site, in which he discussed jury independence, the Middle East conflict and the judge’s directions. None of the defendants were convicted in the first trial, although four activists were convicted of criminal damage at a retrial and await sentencing.

BHP Group has been denied permission to appeal a High Court ruling that could make it liable under Brazilian law for the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Minas Gerais, which killed 19 people and released more than 40 million cubic metres of toxic waste into the Doce River. The decision clears the way for a landmark London trial, while a separate appeal concerning legal-cost interest may proceed in October and a damages trial is expected in 2027. Claimants’ lawyers welcomed the ruling, whereas BHP cited a roughly $32 billion Brazilian compensation agreement and argued that many UK claims should be discontinued after claimants received compensation and signed releases.

Andrew Tate’s planned five-week civil trial at London’s High Court has been adjourned after Hertfordshire Constabulary reopened an investigation into allegations of rape and sexual assault. Tate’s lawyers argued that the criminal reinvestigation could restrict his access to potentially exculpatory evidence, while the four women suing him sought a firm timetable for relisting the case. The reinvestigation involves material from ten devices, and the judge is expected to issue a full judgment before further hearings later in the year. Tate is also challenging the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision not to bring criminal charges in a separate case.

Andrew Tate’s civil trial at the High Court, brought by four women alleging sexual violence, was adjourned after Hertfordshire Constabulary reopened a related sexual abuse investigation previously closed in 2019. Tate’s lawyers argued that the ongoing criminal reinvestigation could prevent access to crucial material, while the women’s barrister expressed disappointment and requested a strict timetable for relisting. The court also heard that Tate is challenging the Crown Prosecution Service over a separate Bedfordshire Police investigation, Operation Moonwalk, in which he faces 10 charges that he denies.

The estates of Jimi Hendrix Experience members Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell lost a High Court challenge against Sony Music Entertainment UK over copyright and performers’ rights in about 40 studio recordings. Justice Edwin Johnson ruled that the 1966 recording agreement clearly assigned copyright to the producers rather than the musicians, and that later releases acknowledging full compensation prevented further claims. The judgment acknowledged that the agreement may have been unfair and that the musicians died in relative poverty, but held that its terms had to be applied as written.

The estates of Jimi Hendrix Experience bassist Noel Redding and drummer Mitch Mitchell lost a High Court challenge against Sony Music Entertainment UK over copyright and performers’ rights in roughly 40 recordings made in the 1960s. Justice Edwin Johnson ruled that the original recording agreement clearly assigned worldwide copyright to the producers without time limits, and that releases previously signed by the musicians also barred their claims. Although the judge acknowledged that the agreement may have been unfair and did not anticipate modern streaming and digital sales, he said it had to be interpreted as written. Sony retains the right to exploit the recordings in the UK.

The High Court rejected Mitch Winehouse’s claim against Amy Winehouse’s stylist Naomi Parry and friend Catriona Gourlay over items sold at US auctions in 2021 and 2023. The defendants argued that the possessions had been gifted to them or already belonged to them, while Winehouse alleged they had concealed the sales. Judge Sarah Clarke KC found no deliberate concealment and said Winehouse could have identified the items with reasonable diligence, also describing him as an unreliable witness. The auctions raised substantial sums for Amy Winehouse’s estate and foundation, including $243,200 for a dress worn during the singer’s final performance.

Mitch Winehouse lost a High Court claim against Amy Winehouse’s friends Naomi Parry and Catriona Gourlay over the auctioning of the singer’s personal items in the United States. The court found that neither friend deliberately concealed the sales and that Winehouse could have discovered them through reasonable diligence. The judge also described him as an unreliable witness, while Parry said the ruling fully cleared her name.

Estée Lauder’s parent company has brought a High Court claim against fragrance entrepreneur Jo Malone, her company Jo Loves and Zara operator ITX Limited, seeking more than £200,000 in damages. The case alleges trademark infringement, passing off and breach of the 1999 agreement under which Malone sold her original brand to Estée Lauder. Estée Lauder argues that Malone’s later use of her name for Jo Loves and Zara’s collaboration using the Jo Malone name damage the original brand’s luxury reputation, and is seeking an injunction as well as financial compensation.

Estée Lauder Europe and Jo Malone Limited are suing fragrance entrepreneur Jo Malone, her Jo Loves company and Zara operator ITX Limited in the High Court for more than £200,000 over alleged trademark infringement, passing off and breach of contract. The dispute follows Malone’s 1999 sale of the Jo Malone brand to Estée Lauder and her later use of the name in connection with Jo Loves products and Zara fragrances. Estée Lauder says the defendants continued using the trademarks despite agreeing to stop, and alleges that Zara’s budget products unfairly exploit and damage the luxury brand’s reputation. The defendants had not yet filed a defence, and the claimants are seeking damages and an injunction.

The UK Court of Appeal overturned a High Court ruling that had prevented unauthorised individuals, including paralegals and trainee solicitors, from carrying out tasks connected with legal proceedings even under supervision. The appellate court affirmed that such individuals may lawfully perform these tasks for and on behalf of authorised people, including solicitors and authorised legal executives. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives led the successful challenge, while the original dispute arose from a costs disagreement between Charles Russell Speechlys LLP and former clients Julia Mazur and Jerome Stuart.

Jo Malone is facing a High Court claim from Estée Lauder Europe and Jo Malone Limited over her collaboration with Zara. Estée Lauder alleges trademark infringement, passing off and breach of contract, arguing that Malone’s use of her name in new fragrance ventures violates the terms agreed when she sold her original brand to the company in 1999. Malone’s business Jo Loves and Zara’s parent company ITX Limited are also defendants. Estée Lauder says the restrictions protect the Jo Malone London brand, in which it has invested substantially.

Fragrance entrepreneur Jo Malone is facing an intellectual property claim in the UK High Court from Estée Lauder Europe and Jo Malone Limited over her use of the Jo Malone name in new ventures. The claims, which also name her company Jo Loves and Zara-related entity ITX Limited, allege trademark infringement, passing off and breach of contract. Malone sold her original fragrance brand to Estée Lauder in 1999 under terms restricting commercial use of her name, while Estée Lauder argues that her recent activities undermine its Jo Malone London brand.

Joey Barton has accepted that a campaign of 48 posts targeting former England international Eni Aluko amounted to harassment and should not have been published. The High Court ordered him to pay £339,000 in damages and legal costs, with an initial £100,000 payment plus interest due by 24 March. Separately, Barton and Gary O'Grady have been charged with assault occasioning grievous bodily harm over an alleged attack on Kevin Lynch at a Merseyside golf club. Lynch is in a serious but stable condition and may lose sight in one eye; the case has been sent to Liverpool Crown Court for a plea hearing on 7 April.

Former Manchester City and QPR midfielder Joey Barton and another man were arrested on suspicion of Section 18 wounding after an alleged assault near a golf club in Huyton, Merseyside. A man suffered facial and rib injuries and was taken to hospital for assessment.

David Furnish testified remotely in a High Court trial against Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail, describing the alleged theft of private information and tapping of his and Elton John’s landline as an “abomination.” Furnish and John allege that ten articles published between 2002 and 2015 relied on unlawfully obtained information, including private medical details. Furnish cited coverage of their son Zachary’s birth certificate and John’s medical treatment, saying the stories reflected a homophobic and judgmental approach. ANL denies the claims and argues that the information came from legitimate sources, including the claimants’ social circles, spokespeople and public statements.

McLaren has been awarded approximately £9 million in damages by the High Court after Alex Palou admitted breaching an agreement to drive for the team in 2024–2026. The court accepted claims including additional driver costs, sponsorship-related losses and a reduced award for performance-based losses, while rejecting McLaren’s Formula One lost-profit claims in full. Palou argued that McLaren’s damages demands were substantially exaggerated and said he chose not to join after learning the team could not provide a Formula One drive; he is considering his legal options and plans to continue with Chip Ganassi Racing.

Owners of Paddington Bear, including StudioCanal and Michael Bond’s relatives, are suing Spitting Image producer Avalon in London’s High Court over depictions of Paddington in four YouTube episodes and a musical trailer. They allege copyright infringement and claim the puppet presents the character as involved with drugs, alcohol, weapons and sex robots while using coarse language and a mocking Peruvian accent. The claimants seek an injunction, destruction or surrender of the puppet, and possible damages; Spitting Image co-writer Al Murray has expressed bafflement at the case.

A High Court judge has ruled that an allegation that two Mail on Sunday journalists burgled a former businessman’s home in 1992 cannot be included in Prince Harry and six other prominent claimants’ legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited. Mr Justice Nicklin said the allegation was unrelated to the claimants and would create a disproportionate factual dispute. The judge also limited attempts to turn the trial into a broad investigation of alleged unlawful information gathering. The claimants’ lawyers are expected to seek permission to appeal, while the main trial is scheduled for January 2026.

Lawyers representing Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants told the High Court that an invoice linked to Prince William’s 21st birthday party in 2003 may indicate that private information was obtained through “blagging.” The claimants accuse Associated Newspapers Limited of unlawful information-gathering practices, while the publisher denies the allegations and is seeking to have parts of the cases dismissed before an expected January 2026 trial.

Hargobind Tahilramani, accused of impersonating Hollywood executives and defrauding more than 300 entertainment professionals through fictitious projects in Indonesia, has lost his High Court challenge against extradition to the United States. The court rejected arguments that his mental health, suicide risk, sexual orientation and vulnerability to abuse in prison made extradition incompatible with his human rights. Justice Sweeting ruled that any protective custody measures would serve to prevent violence rather than reflect discriminatory intent, clearing the way for Tahilramani to face eight US charges, including wire fraud conspiracy, wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

The High Court ruled that it would be premature to decide whether MI5 or individuals should face contempt of court proceedings over false and incomplete evidence submitted to secure a 2022 injunction against the BBC. The judges ordered a fresh investigation by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, finding that MI5’s previous investigations had serious procedural deficiencies and could not currently be relied upon. MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum apologized and pledged full cooperation.

Former Barclays chief executive Jes Staley lost his challenge against the Financial Conduct Authority’s decision to ban him from senior financial-sector roles over misleading statements about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Upper Tribunal found that Staley acted recklessly and without integrity by approving a 2019 letter that understated the closeness and duration of the relationship, and said the ban was justified. The tribunal reduced his fine from £1.8 million to £1,107,306.92 and criticized him for showing no remorse.

Former Barclays chief executive Jes Staley lost his challenge against a Financial Conduct Authority ban preventing him from holding senior financial-sector roles because he misled the regulator about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Upper Tribunal unanimously upheld the ban but reduced Staley’s £1.8 million fine to £1,107,306.92. Staley argued that he had never concealed the relationship and characterized it as professional rather than a close personal friendship, but the tribunal found that he acted recklessly and without integrity by approving a misleading 2019 letter to the FCA.

A deputy High Court judge ruled in favour of the West Dulwich Action Group, finding that Lambeth Council acted unlawfully when deciding to introduce a low-traffic neighbourhood scheme. Although the council’s consultation process was deemed lawful, the judge found that officials failed to consider a detailed 53-page presentation submitted by residents and businesses, despite its relevance to the decision. The ruling halts the scheme while the court considers written submissions on what should happen next.

Seven prominent claimants, including Prince Harry, Elton John, Doreen Lawrence and Simon Hughes, accuse Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail, of commissioning or carrying out unlawful information-gathering activities such as phone tapping, obtaining private records and burglaries. At a preliminary High Court hearing, their barrister David Sherborne argued that extensive redactions had concealed evidence of systematic wrongdoing and should be removed. Associated Newspapers denies the allegations, says it has provided legitimate explanations for information used in articles, and argues that further disclosure would improperly enable the claimants to expand their case. The hearing follows Harry’s unsuccessful appeal over his UK security arrangements.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that naming Sir Philip Green in Parliament as the businessman behind an injunction against The Telegraph did not violate his right to privacy. Green had argued that Lord Hain’s 2018 disclosure made his confidentiality claim against the newspaper futile and denied him a fair hearing. The court declared his fair-trial and effective-remedy complaints inadmissible, while rejecting the privacy claim, and said the UK Parliament should determine whether additional controls on parliamentary privilege are needed to prevent members from disclosing information covered by privacy injunctions. Green denied allegations of sexual and racist misconduct reported by The Telegraph.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal rejected the Home Office’s request to keep confidential the basic details of Apple’s legal challenge to UK government demands under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The tribunal ruled that the parties’ identities and other “bare details” could be made public, while leaving open the possibility of public elements in future hearings. Reports link the case to government efforts to obtain access to data protected by Apple’s Advanced Data Protection encryption, though neither Apple nor the Home Office confirmed those reports. Apple has withdrawn Advanced Data Protection as an option for new UK users and is moving existing users away from it. The Home Office defended targeted investigatory powers as essential for tackling terrorism and serious crime, while insisting that judicial safeguards protect privacy.

Released documents indicate that Prince Andrew and his former adviser Dominic Hampshire met King Charles at Windsor Castle to discuss Andrew’s future and funding proposals, including the Eurasia Fund. Buckingham Palace says the King was briefed on funding but that Yang Tengbo, identified in the controversy as an alleged Chinese spy, was never mentioned, and that the fund never received royal approval. Hampshire said Yang helped draft communications but did not have a close relationship with Andrew, adding that he kept the Palace and intelligence services informed and is no longer commercially connected to the Royal Family.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed challenges to Thames Water’s approved £3 billion restructuring plan, allowing the utility to access financing and continue operating. The appeals were brought by secondary creditors, parent company Thames Water Limited and Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard, who argued that the plan was mispriced, favored senior lenders and failed to protect customers. Chief executive Chris Weston welcomed the ruling, saying the interim plan would support network investment while the company seeks a longer-term financial solution. Without the financing, Thames Water could have faced special administration.

Two British-born Chagossian women, Bernadette Dugasse and Bertrice Pompe, are preparing legal action against the UK government over a proposed agreement to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. They argue that Chagossians were excluded from negotiations, fear discrimination and loss of their right to return—particularly to Diego Garcia, where they were born—and oppose the arrangement despite its proposed lease-back of the US-UK military base. Their lawyer has sent a pre-action letter to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which says negotiations focused on securing the base’s continued operation and declines to comment on the potential challenge.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held a private hearing reportedly connected to Apple’s legal challenge against a UK Government order seeking access to data protected by Advanced Data Protection. Media organizations and civil liberties groups were denied entry and were not told who was involved. Apple has withdrawn Advanced Data Protection as a new option for UK users and said it will move existing users away from the feature, while privacy groups argue that the case affects millions of users and should be heard publicly.

The High Court ordered Paddy Power to pay Gloucestershire woman Corrine Durber the full £1 million jackpot from its Wild Hatter online game, rather than the £20,265 she initially received. A software error displayed the wrong prize amount, although the random number generator had assigned her the smaller daily jackpot. The judge ruled that the game's presentation led customers to expect the displayed winnings to be accurate. Paddy Power acknowledged that the error had affected multiple plays over several weeks and expressed regret, while Durber said she was relieved by the ruling but would no longer use the company's services.

Former Royal Ballet School student Ellen Elphick has settled a legal claim alleging that teachers body-shamed her during training between 2009 and 2012, contributing to anorexia, body dysmorphia and the end of her dance career. Her lawyers said the school did not admit liability or apologize. Elphick made the case public to raise awareness of harmful treatment in dance, while her representatives called for the ballet community to recognize its duty of care and urged the government to investigate body shaming and abuse in ballet.

Mike Ashley is suing HM Revenue and Customs in the High Court over its handling of a subject access request related to a £13.6 million tax dispute arising from property sales in 2012. Ashley’s lawyers say HMRC withheld extensive personal data and created a “complete stone wall,” while HMRC accepts limited failures but argues that Ashley sought an overly broad interpretation of his personal data. HMRC says it has since complied fully and has no further data to disclose. The hearing is expected to conclude with a written decision later.

The High Court ordered former television producer Richard Hall to pay Manchester Arena bombing survivors Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve £45,000 in damages after finding that his conspiracy claims and conduct, including filming Eve outside her home, amounted to harassment. Hall had argued that the 2017 attack was a government-staged hoax and that the Hibberts were crisis actors, but the judge described his narrative as preposterous and his conduct as a reckless abuse of media freedom. The court also granted the pair an injunction against further harassment and ordered Hall to pay 90% of their legal costs.

Sports Direct, operated by Mike Ashley’s Frasers Group, has lost its Court of Appeal bid to force Newcastle United to supply replica kits for the 2024/25 Premier League season. The court upheld the refusal of interim relief, despite finding that Sports Direct had a serious case to be tried over whether the club’s agreement with JD Sports, Adidas and Newcastle United was anti-competitive. The judges said the balance of convenience favored a speedy trial, warning that wrongly granting an injunction could cause far greater damage to Newcastle United than Sports Direct would suffer by missing one or two seasons of kit supply.

The Court of Appeal overturned Auriol Grey’s manslaughter conviction for causing cyclist Celia Ward to fall into the path of an oncoming car in Huntingdon in 2020. Three judges ruled that the prosecution had failed to identify the unlawful base offence required for an unlawful-act manslaughter conviction and that the jury had not been asked to determine that fundamental issue. Although the Crown Prosecution Service requested a retrial, the request was refused.

The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that trade union law fails to protect workers from employer sanctions short of dismissal when they take lawful strike action, effectively undermining the right to strike. The case was brought by care worker and Unison representative Fiona Mercer, who was suspended by Alternative Futures Group after participating in a planned 2019 strike. Lady Simler said the legislation encouraged and legitimized unfair employer conduct, while noting that the court made no findings about the employer’s intentions or the proportionality of its actions. Unison and the TUC hailed the decision as a landmark victory and urged the government to amend the law, while criticizing its wider approach to industrial action.

Shamima Begum has been refused permission by the Court of Appeal to take her challenge against the removal of her British citizenship to the Supreme Court. Her citizenship was revoked on national security grounds after she travelled to Syria as a 15-year-old and was later found in a refugee camp. She may still apply directly to the Supreme Court for permission to have the case heard. The Court of Appeal said the deprivation decision could be viewed as harsh but was not unlawful, while Begum’s solicitor Daniel Furner pledged to continue pursuing her return and what he described as justice.

Nottingham gang leader Colin Gunn, serving a minimum 35-year sentence for orchestrating the murders of John and Joan Stirland, lost a High Court challenge against his continued classification as a high escape risk. Gunn argued that the Ministry of Justice's 2023 decision was unfair and subjected him to a more restrictive prison regime, limiting his chances of transfer and eventual release. Mr Justice Saini ruled that intelligence about a previous alleged escape plan involving a helicopter and firearms remained relevant, and that the decision to reject an oral hearing was lawful.

Donald Trump must pay Orbis Business Intelligence’s legal costs after the High Court dismissed his data-protection claim over allegations in the Steele dossier that he participated in sex acts in Russia and bribed Russian officials. Justice Steyn ruled that the claim was bound to fail and ordered Trump to pay an initial £300,000 toward Orbis’s estimated costs of more than £600,000. The dossier was produced by Orbis in 2016 by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele and later published by BuzzFeed; Trump denied the allegations and has not attempted an appeal.

The Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site alliance has largely lost its High Court challenge against the UK government’s renewed approval of a two-mile tunnel forming part of the A303 upgrade near Stonehenge. Mr Justice Holgate dismissed most of the claims as unarguable, while deferring a decision on one issue concerning the Department for Transport’s environmental impact assessment. The government and National Highways argue that the tunnel will reduce traffic’s visual and noise impact and improve journey times, while campaigners say officials unlawfully considered alternatives and failed to account adequately for damage to the site’s heritage and environment.

Martin and Eve Hibbert, who suffered life-changing injuries in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, are suing conspiracy theorist Richard Hall for harassment, misuse of private information and data protection violations. Hall argued that the attack was staged by government agencies and that no one was genuinely killed or injured. High Court judge Richard Davison rejected those claims as “absurd and fantastical,” ruling that the bombing occurred, 22 people died and the Hibberts’ injuries were caused by the attack, preventing Hall from using the trial to advance his conspiracy theory.

Nicola Thorp told the High Court that Laurence Fox effectively identified himself as racist by calling for a boycott of Sainsbury’s over its Black History Month safe space for Black employees. Fox had described Thorp, drag artist Crystal, and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake as paedophiles after they called him racist, leading to their libel claims; Fox is also counter-suing them and denies being racist. Thorp said any reputational damage Fox suffered resulted from his own actions, while Fox said the accusation was false, hurtful, and damaging to his career. The trial is expected to conclude later in the week, with judgment to follow.

Laurence Fox told the High Court that allegations branding him a racist destroyed his reputation, acting career and financial security. He said he had been earning up to £600,000 a year, lost his agent, missed opportunities to audition for productions including Batman and Succession, and struggled to obtain a mortgage after calling for a boycott of Sainsbury’s in 2020. The libel case arose after Fox called drag artist Crystal, Simon Blake and Nicola Thorp paedophiles in response to their describing him as racist; both sides are suing one another. The claimants maintain they honestly believed Fox was racist and argue that his own conduct caused any reputational damage. The trial is expected to conclude later in the week, with judgment to follow.

Sir James Dyson is awaiting a written judgment in his libel claim against Mirror Group Newspapers over a January 2022 Daily Mirror column by Brian Reade. Dyson argues that the article, which criticized his support for Brexit and relocation of Dyson’s global headquarters to Singapore, was a vicious and unjustified attack on his reputation. MGN maintains that the article was substantially correct and protected as the columnist’s honest opinion. The judge said he would consider the evidence carefully and issue a decision later.

Drag artist Crystal, whose real name is Colin Seymour, told the High Court that Laurence Fox’s 2020 tweets calling him and former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake “paedophiles” were a deliberate homophobic attack intended to incite abuse. Seymour said the posts caused overwhelming distress, sustained online abuse and fears for his personal and professional reputation. Blake also described the association of gay men with paedophilia as a longstanding homophobic trope. Fox is defending their libel claim while counter-suing Seymour, Blake and Nicola Thorp over tweets calling him racist. His lawyers argue that the claimants suffered no substantial reputational harm, while asserting that Fox’s own reputation and acting career were seriously damaged. The trial is expected to conclude the following week, with judgment to come later.

Laurence Fox is defending a libel claim and bringing a countersuit against Simon Blake, drag artist Crystal, whose real name is Colin Seymour, and Nicola Thorp over a 2020 social-media dispute involving Sainsbury’s Black History Month initiative. Counsel for the three claimants described Fox as an “intelligent racist” and argued that his statements had caused serious reputational harm, while Fox’s lawyer said the paedophile allegations were understood as rhetorical abuse rather than factual claims. Fox denies being racist and says the accusations damaged his acting career, citing a sharp fall in business opportunities and the loss of his agent. The trial is expected to conclude the following week, with judgment to follow.

The High Court heard that Laurence Fox experienced a sharp decline in acting and professional opportunities after being called a racist in a 2020 social-media dispute involving Simon Blake, Crystal and Nicola Thorp. Fox is counter-suing the trio, denying racism and claiming their posts harmed his reputation, while they argue they honestly believed he was racist and that any reputational damage resulted from his own controversial statements. His barrister cited a fall from 52 listed opportunities in 2019 to four each in 2021 and 2022, while the claimants highlighted later posts they described as racist. The trial is expected to conclude the following week, with judgment due later.

Sir James Dyson told the High Court that a Daily Mirror column by Brian Reade, which accused him of hypocrisy for supporting Brexit while moving Dyson’s global headquarters to Singapore, seriously damaged his reputation. Dyson said the article was a vicious personal attack and that he pursued the £1 million libel claim only after attempts to secure an apology and correction failed. Mirror Group Newspapers argues that the article was substantially correct and constituted protected honest opinion, while also challenging Dyson’s legal approach as disproportionate. The trial is expected to conclude on Friday, with judgment due later.

Laurence Fox’s libel trial against former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal, whose real name is Colin Seymour, is due to begin at London’s High Court. Fox allegedly called the pair paedophiles during a 2020 Twitter dispute over Sainsbury’s Black History Month initiative, while he is counter-suing them and actress Nicola Thorp over accusations of racism. The week-long trial will hear evidence from Fox, and will be presided over by Mrs Justice Collins Rice after a request for a jury trial was rejected.

The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Deliveroo riders are not employees or workers entitled to require the company to engage in collective bargaining. The court found that riders’ ability to reject work, work for competitors and use substitutes was fundamentally inconsistent with an employment relationship under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Deliveroo welcomed the decision, emphasizing flexibility and existing support for riders, while the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain called it a disappointment and said it would continue seeking basic protections and collective bargaining rights through available legal avenues.

The High Court is due to hear the consequences of a ruling allowing Prince Harry, Elton John, Doreen Lawrence and four other claimants to continue their legal action against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail. The claimants allege unlawful information gathering, including phone interception, covert recording and obtaining private records. Associated Newspapers denies the allegations and says they are “preposterous.” The cases remain at an early stage, with no formal defence yet filed.

The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful because Rwanda’s asylum system posed a real risk that claims would be mishandled and refugees could be returned to countries where they faced ill-treatment. The court rejected the Home Office’s reliance on Rwanda’s assurances, emphasized evidence from the UN refugee agency and relevant international treaties, and said the policy could potentially become lawful if substantial structural and capacity-building changes were implemented.

The High Court allowed claims brought by Prince Harry, Elton John, Doreen Lawrence and four other high-profile figures against Associated Newspapers Limited to proceed to trial. The claimants allege that Mail titles engaged in unlawful activities including phone tapping, covert listening devices, private-record access, burglaries and corrupt payments. Justice Nicklin rejected ANL’s attempt to end the cases on the grounds that they were brought too late, finding that the claims had a real prospect of showing concealment of wrongdoing. ANL denies the allegations and welcomed a separate ruling excluding confidential Leveson Inquiry ledgers from the case, calling that decision a significant victory.

The Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost are suing Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail, over alleged unlawful information-gathering, including phone hacking, private investigators and the obtaining of confidential records. Associated Newspapers denies the allegations and argued that the claims were brought too late, but the High Court allowed the case to continue. The individuals have also pursued or won related claims against publishers of The Sun and The Mirror.

Prince Harry, Elton John, Doreen Lawrence and four other high-profile claimants are awaiting a High Court ruling on whether their privacy claims against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail, can proceed. They allege unlawful information gathering, including phone interception, accessing private records and placing listening devices in cars. Associated Newspapers denies the allegations and argues the cases were brought too late, while the claimants say the publisher’s denials concealed the alleged wrongdoing and that they have compelling cases. Mr Justice Nicklin is due to issue his decision in writing on Friday.

Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and four other public figures are awaiting a High Court ruling on whether their claims against Associated Newspapers Limited can proceed. They allege that the publisher used unlawful information-gathering methods, including private investigators, accessing private records and intercepting communications. ANL denies the allegations and argues that the claims were brought too late and have no reasonable prospect of success. The claimants say they were misled by the publisher’s denials and did not know they had been targeted. Mr Justice Nicklin is expected to issue his decision on ANL’s application to end the cases.

The UK Supreme Court is due to rule on Wednesday whether the government’s plan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda is lawful. The Home Office argues that Rwanda is a safe destination and that bilateral assurances protect deportees’ access to fair refugee-status procedures. Lawyers representing asylum seekers and the UNHCR dispute this, describing Rwanda’s asylum system as fundamentally deficient and unreliable. No deportation flights have taken place since the policy was announced in April 2022, while the government continues to frame it as part of its effort to stop small-boat arrivals.

The Court of Appeal reduced Jordan McSweeney’s minimum life-sentence term from 38 to 33 years for murdering and sexually assaulting Zara Aleena in Ilford in 2022, ruling that the original sentence was manifestly excessive. The judges found insufficient evidence to justify additional increases for alleged mental or physical suffering and rejected the conclusion that McSweeney took Aleena’s phone to prevent her calling for help. Aleena’s family accepted the legal reasoning but condemned the decision as a disheartening message to women, while Justice Secretary Alex Chalk backed reforms intended to keep offenders convicted of sexually aggravated murder in prison for life. The 33-year term is only the point at which McSweeney becomes eligible for parole consideration and does not guarantee release.

The Court of Appeal reduced Jordan McSweeney’s minimum life-sentence term from 38 to 33 years for the sexual assault and murder of Zara Aleena in Ilford in 2022. The judges ruled that the original sentencing judge was not entitled to treat Aleena’s alleged “inordinate suffering” as an additional aggravating factor because there was insufficient evidence that she regained consciousness after being rendered unconscious early in the attack. They also rejected the view that McSweeney took her phone to prevent her calling for help and questioned whether he expected to be recalled to prison. The court upheld the consideration of his ADHD and difficult background but found these did not materially reduce his culpability; a sentence well above the 30-year starting point remained justified.

Actor Noel Clarke is suing Guardian News and Media over eight articles alleging sexual misconduct, bullying and sexual harassment by women who knew him professionally. In a preliminary High Court ruling, Mr Justice Johnson found that seven articles conveyed strong grounds to believe Clarke was guilty of various forms of sexual harassment, while the eighth conveyed grounds to investigate, and ruled that all eight could be defamatory. Clarke said he was satisfied with the ruling and intends to continue his defamation and data protection claims, while the publisher is expected to file its defence.

Noel Clarke is suing Guardian News and Media over eight articles reporting sexual misconduct allegations made by women who knew him professionally. His barrister, Adam Speker KC, told the High Court that the reporting created an overall impression of guilt, branding Clarke a “sexual predator” and causing him to be cancelled by organizations and broadcasters. Guardian News and Media's counsel, Gavin Millar KC, argued that the articles conveyed reasonable grounds for suspicion and reported a matter of public interest rather than asserting Clarke's guilt, while making clear that he denied the allegations. The court also heard that Scotland Yard decided in 2022 not to open a criminal investigation. A decision is expected after the preliminary hearing concludes.

Shamima Begum is awaiting the Court of Appeal’s decision on her challenge to the removal of her British citizenship. Her lawyers argue that the Home Office unlawfully failed to consider her alleged trafficking and possible state failures that contributed to her travelling to Syria as a 15-year-old. The government argues that trafficking considerations have a different purpose from citizenship deprivation and that national security remains the central issue. The appeal hearing is due to conclude in London, with both open and closed decisions to be reserved.

Shamima Begum’s lawyers told the Court of Appeal that the 2019 decision to remove her British citizenship was unlawful because the Home Office failed to consider her alleged trafficking and the state’s duties toward her as a potential victim. They argued that failures by public bodies, including the Metropolitan Police, Tower Hamlets Council and Begum’s school, may have contributed to her being trafficked to Syria at age 15. The Home Office argued that possible radicalisation or manipulation does not negate the national security risk she may pose, and that there was no direct connection between earlier state failures and then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s decision. The three-day hearing is due to conclude on Thursday, with judgment expected later.

Jordan McSweeney’s appeal against the 38-year minimum term for murdering and sexually assaulting Zara Aleena was heard by the Court of Appeal. His barrister argued that the attack was opportunistic rather than premeditated and that McSweeney’s ADHD should have been considered in sentencing. The Crown Prosecution Service argued that he had stalked women for hours, deliberately targeted Aleena and inevitably intended to kill her, describing the assault as planned and premeditated. McSweeney left the video-linked hearing shortly after it began, continuing a pattern of non-attendance and lack of remorse noted by prosecutors. The judges reserved their decision.

Jordan McSweeney is seeking to reduce his life sentence, which carries a minimum term of 38 years, arguing that it is manifestly excessive. He admitted murdering and sexually assaulting Zara Aleena after stalking and attacking her in Ilford in June 2022. The Court of Appeal is due to hear his challenge, while the case has also highlighted serious failures by the Probation Service, which released McSweeney on licence and did not promptly recall him after he missed supervision appointments despite his high risk of serious harm.

Jordan McSweeney, who stalked and murdered Zara Aleena in Ilford in June 2022, is seeking to have his life sentence with a minimum term of 38 years reduced by the Court of Appeal. He admitted murder and sexual assault after an attack that caused 46 injuries. McSweeney had been released on licence shortly before the killing, and Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said a series of Probation Service failures meant he was not treated as a high-risk offender or promptly recalled to prison after missing supervision appointments.

The Court of Appeal said immediate imprisonment for abortion-related offences is unlikely to be a just outcome, reducing Carla Foster’s 28-month extended sentence to 14 months suspended. The judges cited her emotional turmoil, trauma, guilt, depression, early admissions and the severe impact of custody on her and her family. Foster had admitted illegally procuring an abortion at 32 to 34 weeks after obtaining abortion medication from BPAS during lockdown. BPAS and the Fawcett Society welcomed the ruling but said it highlighted the need for urgent reform so women are no longer investigated, prosecuted or threatened with prison for abortion-related conduct.

Donald Trump told the High Court he intends to give evidence in his data protection claim against Orbis Business Intelligence over allegations contained in the Steele dossier, including claims about sexual conduct and bribes involving Russian officials. Trump says the allegations are wholly untrue and caused distress and reputational damage, while Orbis argues the claim was brought too late, that BuzzFeed—not Orbis—caused any reputational harm by publishing the dossier, and that the case is intended to pursue a vendetta. The preliminary hearing has concluded, with the judge’s written decision pending.

Donald Trump is suing Orbis Business Intelligence in the High Court over two memoranda in the Steele dossier, alleging unlawful processing of his personal data and seeking compensation for distress. His barrister says Trump wants legal vindication that allegations of sexual misconduct and bribery involving Russian officials are false. Orbis argues the claim was brought too late, has no realistic prospect of success and improperly seeks to pursue a vendetta against the company and Christopher Steele. The hearing was due to conclude on Tuesday, with judgment expected later.

Donald Trump is bringing a data protection claim at London’s High Court against Orbis Business Intelligence, the consultancy founded by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele. The case concerns the Steele dossier, which included disputed allegations that Trump had been compromised by Russia and that Vladimir Putin supported an operation to cultivate him as a presidential candidate; Trump denies the claims. The hearing is before Mrs Justice Steyn. Orbis and Steele previously defeated a libel claim by Russian national Aleksej Gubarev over the dossier’s publication by BuzzFeed, after Lord Justice Warby dismissed the case in 2020.

The UK Supreme Court is hearing the Home Office’s appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling that the UK’s Rwanda asylum-transfer agreement is unlawful. The UNHCR argues that Rwanda’s guarantees of fair asylum procedures and adequate treatment are merely aspirational and do not address fundamental weaknesses in the country’s system, citing alleged expulsions and intimidation under a previous arrangement with Israel. The Home Office maintains that Rwanda is a safe destination, that the agreement includes legal safeguards and review rights, and that both governments have strong incentives to comply. The three-day hearing is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with judgment to follow.

Prince Harry’s claim against News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun and the defunct News of the World, is expected to be heard in a January 2025 trial alongside Hugh Grant’s case and other claims. Harry alleges that journalists and private investigators unlawfully gathered information about him. A judge previously blocked parts of his phone-hacking claim and rejected his attempt to rely on an alleged secret agreement involving the Royal Family and Rupert Murdoch’s executives, while allowing allegations concerning private investigators to proceed. NGN denies unlawful activity at The Sun and described the earlier ruling as a significant victory. Eighteen related claims have reportedly settled since August, and further hearings are scheduled for December.