By: Guest Contributor

Challenge to the registration of a private gender healthcare clinic fails- Court of Appeal

19 December 2025 by Guest Contributor

Alice Grant

In Evans v Care Quality Commission [2025] EWCA Civ 1556, the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Lewis) refused to grant permission to appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of a judicial review challenging two decisions by the Care Quality Commission (“CQC”). The Appellants, Ms Evans and a mother who wished to remain anonymous, contested (1) the CQC’s January 2024 decision to register Gender Plus Healthcare Ltd (“GPH”) pursuant to section 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”), and (2) the December 2024 review of GPH’s services under section 46 of the same Act.

The case has attracted substantial public interest, engaging broader debates over the regulation of cross-sex hormone treatment for minors. The  widely-reported Cass Review, led by the British paediatrician Hilary Cass, together with concerns over the prevalence of ideological influences in this medical field, were raised. 

Background

In the High Court, acknowledging the “strongly held views about this treatment”, Mrs Justice Eady observed (R (OAO Evans and another) v Care Quality Commission [2025] EWHC 2015 (Admin) at [2]): 

“The hormone treatment in issue involves the prescription of masculinising or feminising hormones (oestrogen; testosterone), introducing irreversible changes to the patient’s body. There are strongly held views about this treatment and an expert panel is due to report to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on its use for those under 18. At present, however, the treatment provided by [GPH] to 16 and 17 year olds is permitted by law, and the issue I am required to determine is not whether that is correct, but whether specific decisions made by the CQC are irrational and/or unlawful.”

Despite agreeing with the Claimants (at [97]), who contended a higher standard of review applies to the irrationality challenge in this case since “hormone treatment is often sought by vulnerable and emotionally distressed individuals” and “can have significant, irreversible, long-term physical and psychological consequences,” the claim was dismissed at first instance. 

Family life and extraterritorial jurisdiction: IA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1516 

10 December 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Samuel Talalay

Introduction 

Chief Constable in contempt: Buzzard-Quashie v CC of Northamptonshire Police [2025] EWCA Civ 1397

8 December 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Kian Leong Tan

INTRODUCTION

In Buzzard-Quashie v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [2025] EWCA Civ 1397, the Court of Appeal has helpfully restated the law on (civil) contempt of court. The decision – arising out of a longstanding refusal by the Northamptonshire police force (“the police force”) to comply with orders from the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) and the courts to release footage from officers’ body-worn cameras (“BWV”) – also affirms the liability of a chief constable for the acts and omissions of their subordinates.

Manifestation of religious belief: Smith v Manchester City Council [2025] EWHC 2987 (KB)

4 December 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Georgina Pein

To what extent does the law afford protection to couples looking to foster children, in circumstances where that couple possesses (and vocalises) strong religious beliefs? This was the issue for consideration before Turner J, who heard this appeal in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. Judgment was handed down on 18 November 2025.

Court of Appeal clarifies judicial duties when making final care and placement orders at an IRH – Re D [2025] EWCA Civ 1362

10 November 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Emily Higlett

Introduction

The Court of Appeal in Re D has overturned final care and placement orders made at an Issues Resolution Hearing (“IRH”), stating that judges must give clear, reasoned findings on the threshold criteria under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”), even where proceedings are uncontested or parents are absent.

In delivering the judgment, Cobb LJ, with whom Baker LJ and Miles LJ agreed, criticised the short form reasoning used by the Family Court and stressed the need for transparent judicial decision-making when the State intervenes in family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).

The scope of advocates’ immunity: CC of Sussex Police and the CPS v XGY

5 November 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Kian Leong Tan

INTRODUCTION

Do advocates retain an absolute immunity for things and said and done in court, or must the invocation of the immunity be scrutinised on a case-by-case basis? A heavyweight panel of the Court of Appeal – including the Lady Chief Justice and the President of the King’s Bench Division – in Chief Constable of Sussex Police and the Crown Prosecution Service v XGY (Bar Council intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 1230 (“XGY”) has come down decisively in favour of the former proposition, offering some much-needed clarity on this area of law.

The problem of ritual slaughter

28 October 2025 by Guest Contributor

Anna Sergeant and Julia Hartley

This is an extract from an article published in the latest edition of The Critic, 17th October 2025. We post it here by kind permission of its authors and editors of The Critic.

In 2024, approximately 220 million animals were ritually slaughtered in England and Wales. Of these, roughly 30 million had their throats slit whilst fully conscious, and 190 million were stunned unconscious before being killed.

The Welfare at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 (“WATOK”) require that animals be effectively stunned before slaughter, in order to spare them “avoidable pain, distress or suffering” when they are killed. In its next breath, however, WATOK authorises the very practice it condemns (non-stun slaughter) where it is “in accordance with religious rites”.

Non-stun slaughter entails atrocious violence which all major animal welfare bodies, including the British Veterinary Association and RSPCA, agree should be prohibited. The failure of Parliament to make a decision about the normative value of animal welfare has left a gaping statutory hole that defers the fate of animals’ final moments to the whim of religious authority.

Hora v the United Kingdom: Strasbourg’s New Ruling on UK’s Prisoner Voting Ban

1 October 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Lewis Graham

In 2005, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down its landmark decision in Hirst v the United Kingdom, finding that the effect of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, bringing into effect a blanket ban on the ability of prisoners in the UK to vote in elections, constituted a breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention (the right to free elections).

To say the case was controversial is an understatement, with the judgment becoming something of a bête noire for Strasbourg sceptics. Murray suggests that the judgment was pivotal in the “monstering” of the European Court. It is often presented as a case which epitomises Strasbourg overreach, taking the number 1 spot in the Judicial Power Project’s buffet of unfavourable, “problematic” legal cases. David Cameron, of course, famously remarked that the idea of complying with the judgment and giving (some) prisoners the vote made him feel “physically sick”.

Physician and Anaesthesia Associates: Delegation, Informed Consent, and Montgomery in the Administrative Court

26 September 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Kian Leong Tan

INTRODUCTION

In R (Anaesthetists United Ltd and Others) v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 2270 (Admin) (“Anaesthetists United”), Mrs Justice Lambert dismissed a judicial review claim brought by the claimants against the defendant regulator for Physician Associates (“PAs”) and Anaesthesia Associates (“AAs”) – collectively referred to hereafter as “Associates” – in the UK.

The claim is the most recent instalment in a brewing saga over the continued use and regulation of Associates in the UK’s healthcare system:

• In April 2025, Lambert J dismissed the British Medical Association (“BMA”)’s judicial review challenge (R (British Medical Association v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 960 (Admin)) to the GMC’s decisions to (i) apply the same basic professional standards to doctors and Associates, and (ii) refer to all three professions collectively as ‘medical professionals’.
• Just prior to the handing down of Anaesthetists United, Professor Gillian Leng released her final report following the conclusion of her independent review into the Associate professions.

Developer’s judicial review challenge rejected by High Court

9 September 2025 by Guest Contributor

Guest Contributor Alice Grant

Rydon Group Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2025] EWHC 2182 (Admin)

Introduction

In Rydon Group Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2025] EWHC 2182 (Admin), the High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge brought by Rydon, a developer criticised in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report. The Court held that the government’s decisions, principally the designation of the Claimant as ‘unfit’ to carry out remediation works, were contractual in nature. As such, they were governed by private law and not amenable to judicial review, save under allegations of fraud, corruption, or bad faith. Rydon remains excluded from carrying out the remediation works and is liable to reimburse costs through the Building Safety Fund (BSF).

Factual Background

In the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, the government established the BSF to finance remediation of unsafe cladding and a contractual framework for developers, the Self-Remediation Terms (SRTs). Developers were required to sign the SRTs in order to join the Responsible Actors Scheme (RAS), thereby avoiding statutory restrictions imposed under the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022) and the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023 (RAS Regulations 2023).

By August 2023, three high-rise blocks developed by Rydon, known as the Cable Street Buildings, had reached the funding approval stage under the BSF. In September 2023, Rydon signed the SRTs and joined the Responsible Actors Scheme (RAS). Rydon requested that the Cable Street Buildings be withdrawn from the BSF so that it could undertake the remediation itself. On 28 February 2024, however, the Secretary of State designated Rydon as a ‘Designated Participant Developer’ under the SRTs, thereby deeming it ‘unfit’ to carry out the remediation works.

Rydon Maintenance, a subsidiary of the Claimant, had been the principal contractor of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment. In the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 Report, Rydon was considered to have had “considerable responsibility for the fire” through “inadequate thought to fire safety” and poor oversight of subcontractors (at [4]).

Supreme Court upholds sanctions on Eugene Shvidler and Dalston Projects in test case for UK regime

18 August 2025 by Guest Contributor

Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and Dalston Projects Ltd and others v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] UKSC 30

By Talia Zybutz

Introduction

These appeals – Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and Dalston Projects Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport – were a test case for the operation of the UK’s sanctions regime introduced in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court confirmed that while the court’s task is to assess proportionality for itself, a wide margin of appreciation will be afforded to the executive in judging how best to respond to and restrain Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Keeping PACE: Searson and Searson v CC of Nottinghamshire Constabulary

11 August 2025 by Guest Contributor

Searson and Another v Chief Constable of Nottingham Constabulary [2025] EWHC 1982 (KB)

By Kian Leong Tan

In Searson v Chief Constable of Nottingham Constabulary [2025] EWHC 1982 (KB), the Appellants successfully appealed against the dismissal of their claim for damages against the Respondent’s police force. The claim arose out of the circumstances of the Second Appellant’s unlawful detention contrary to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”). Wall J’s judgment emphasises the need for strict compliance with the spirit of the procedural safeguard of regular reviews of detention in s 40 PACE, which serves to protect the fundamental right of freedom of movement.

The Begum Legacy: the Supreme Court further tightens the reins on citizenship deprivation appeals

27 June 2025 by Guest Contributor

By guest contributor Saira Turner

In U3 (AP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 19, the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal against a decision taken by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (“SIAC”) relating to deprivation of citizenship and refusal of entry clearance on the basis of national security concerns.

Rejoinder to Deb and Graham: Yes, the ECHR prohibits States from euthanising people by Rajiv Shah

19 November 2024 by Guest Contributor

Deb and Graham characterise my argument as follows: “the right to life under Article 2 is absolute and allows no exception; there is a negative obligation upon the UK not to take life; any euthanasia laws would necessarily involve the taking of life; therefore euthanasia laws would breach Article 2.” They then point out that this argument has been rejected in Mortier v Belgium.

The problem is that this completely mischaracterises my argument and as result Deb and Graham dedicate several paragraphs to attacking a strawman. My argument was much narrower than they claim. As I explained in my blog post the “negative obligation prohibits the State from conducting euthanasia and assisted suicide itself, even as part of a well-regulated scheme with appropriate safeguards. This means that, under the Convention, States may allow/tolerate private parties from conducting euthanasia/assisted suicide with appropriate safeguards but the State itself cannot conduct them.” (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court prioritises substance over form in protecting the welfare of children in an immigration context. Explicit reference to guidance is neither sufficient nor necessary.  

15 November 2024 by Guest Contributor

In their co-authored judgment, Lord Sales and Dame Siobhan Keegan provide a rich analysis of how the courts should consider the welfare of children in an immigration context. In doing so, they clarify the meaning and effect of Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“Section 55”) and its interaction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“Article 8”). The judgment provides a guide for how the appellate courts should assess decision-making by the Secretary of State, her officials, and the First-tier Tribunal.