The Supreme Court yesterday heard an appeal in R (Foodrise Ltd, formerly Global Feedback Ltd) v HM Treasury, which concerns the availability of Aarhus Convention costs protection for claimants in environmental challenges. These protections ensure that environmental litigation is not prohibitively expensive, and the appeal is likely to have significant ramifications for environmental access to justice.

The appeal arises from Foodrise’s judicial review concerning regulations implementing tariff preferences under the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which it contends will harm the environment because of the higher climate impact of meat production in Australia. Foodrise obtained cost capping in the High Court, but that decision was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Conor McCarthy acts for the Appellant, Foodrise.

Nikolaus Grubeck and Will Perry act for an Intervener, Friends of the Earth.

On 10 June 2026, the Divisional Court (Males LJ and Morris J) dismissed Innsworth’s claim for judicial review of the CAT’s decision as to how a £200 million collective settlement sum should be distributed: [2026] EWHC 1393 (Admin).

By a settlement agreement dated 3 December 2024, Mastercard agreed to pay the class representative, Mr Merricks, £200 million to settle the collective proceedings commenced in September 2016 which alleged that 44 million people in the UK had paid higher retail prices because of inflated interchange fees. Accordingly, both parties made a joint application to the CAT for a Collective Settlement Approval Order (“CSAO”) pursuant to Rule 94 of the CAT Rules 2015.

On 23 January 2025, the CAT granted permission to Innsworth, the funder, to intervene in the CSAO Application, as the funder objected both to the amount of the settlement, and to the proposed method of distribution. By judgment dated 20 May 2025, the CAT approved the settlement as just and reasonable, this being the statutory test pursuant to section 49A(5) Competition Act 1998. The CAT rejected Innsworth’s claim for £179 million (89% of the settlement sum) and approved a payment to the funder of £68 million (34% of the settlement sum) which consisted of re-imbursement of the £45.5 million invested and a £22.5 million profit.

Innsworth objected to the payment to it of £22.5 million as net profit and by application dated 10 June 2025, claimed judicial review of the CAT’s judgment on distribution but not of the settlement sum.

The Divisional Court held that there was no material error in the CAT’s judgment that a 50% net profit on the funder’s investment of £45.5 million amounting to a total return of £68 million was fair and reasonable. This paves the way for class members to receive a payment of up to £70.

Mark Brealey KC acted for Mr Merricks in the collective settlement proceedings.

Click here for the full Divisional Court judgment.

Click here for Mark Brealey’s Case Note (also on his web page).

The case has been covered in the press: Global Competition Review, The Law Society Gazette, the Global Legal Post, MLex, ICLG and Legal Futures.

The President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal against a tribunal’s refusal to make witness order mid-way through a final hearing. The appeal had sought to revive the final hearing following the substantive dismissal of the claims.

Lord Fairley clarified the standard set in Remploy Limited v. Lowen-Bulger UKEAT/0027/18/RN as to what was required of a tribunal when assessing the relevance of evidence under the test in Dada v. Metal Box Company Ltd [1974] IRLR 251 NIRC. The Judgment emphasises the need for applicants for witness orders to address the specific content of the proposed evidence a witness would give, rather than merely referring to issues in the case that the evidence would be relevant to, without which a tribunal cannot be criticised for not assessing in detail the relevance of the evidence (§§29-31).

Jen Coyne acted for the respondent Introhive UK Ltd, both below and on appeal, instructed by Matthew Cole and Sheilah Cummins of Prettys Solicitors LLP.

Judgment is available here.

The Supreme Court (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hamblen and Lord Richards) has granted permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the challenge to the imposition of VAT on private school fees. The Charedi Jewish claimants (BYL and BAU), represented by Khatija Hafesji at Monckton Chambers (led by Stephen Broach KC at 39 Essex Chambers) have been granted permission on all grounds.

 

In a judgment handed down this morning, Mr Justice Murray – sitting in the Administrative Court – quashed the decision of Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court to try and convict Mr David Justice of the charge of harassment in his absence and without any legal representation.

That decision was held to be an irrational exercise of the Magistrates’ Court’s power, under s.11 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, to proceed to trial in the absence of the accused.

The learned Judge also held that, on the facts of this case, an appeal of the decision to the Crown Court was not a suitable alternative remedy to judicial review proceedings. The case is a rare judicial review of Magistrates’ Court decisions of this nature.

Khatija Hafesji was instructed by the charity Advocate, and represented Mr Justice pro bono.

On 27 May 2026, Professor Panos Koutrakos gave evidence before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands House of Representatives. The Committee conducted an enquiry on a draft Decree on temporary economic restrictions to prevent the maintenance of unlawful settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories that the Dutch Government submitted on 22 May 2026. He focused on the legal issues that arise under EU law regarding trade in goods, services, and investment.

In July 2025, he also gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Irish Parliament about the legality under EU law of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025.

Professor Koutrakos has advised clients, lectured and written widely about such matters, as well as trade and EU law in general (he is the author, amongst others, of EU International Relations Law 2nd edition (Hart Publishing, 2015)).

The Court of Appeal today handed down judgment in Deckers UK Limited v Up & Running (UK) Limited, re-emphasising the need to assess the economic context before identifying an infringement by object under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998.

The judgment has wide implications for the economy and is required reading for those advising clients in relation to selective distribution systems and vertical agreements more generally.

The case concerned Deckers’s arrangements for distribution of its HOKA brand of running shoes. Deckers appealed the conclusion that these constituted an infringement by object of the Chapter I prohibition, which was itself based on the finding that they had no legitimate purpose outside the protection of the integrity of its selective distribution system.

The Court of Appeal conducted an extensive review of the case law relating to the identification of infringements by object, both generally and in the context of selective distribution. It recalled the four part test set out in Case C-67/13P Groupement des Cartes Bancaires (CB) v European Commission, summarising: “In relation to an impugned measure it is necessary to examine its: (a) content; (b) objectives; (c) legal context; and (d), economic context.”

It held that to assess the arrangements purely on the basis of their subjective purpose, without carrying out an assessment of the economic context, had been incorrect in law. It further concluded that the arrangements were not infringements by object, and would in any event have benefited from the block exemption for vertical agreements (Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010, which was the exemption in force at the relevant time).

Alison Berridge appeared for the Appellant, Deckers UK Limited (led by Marie Demetriou KC). Earlier in the proceedings, Jenn Lawrence also appeared for the Appellant.

Nicholas Khan KC appeared for the Respondent,  Up and Running (UK) Limited.

Michael Armitage appeared for the Intervener, the Competition and Markets Authority.

The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in Dillon v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

The case concerns the compatibility of the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 with the European Convention of Human Rights, and the non-diminution guarantee in Article 2 of the Windsor Framework (formerly the Northern Ireland Protocol). The Act brought to an end Troubles-related inquests, new civil claims, Police Ombudsman and police investigations.

The case has significant implications for the meaning and effect of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, including on questions of direct effect and the application of the EU Charter in domestic law post Brexit.

Jack was instructed by Darragh Mackin of Phoenix Law and acted for the lead respondents / cross-appellants (Dillon et al), and was led by John Larkin KC and Jude Bunting KC.

Following the certification of Which? v Apple (icloud) proceedings (as to which see here), the Tribunal has refused Apple’s application to strike out part of Which?’s claim brought by non-purchasing class members. These are customers who did not pay for iCloud at the actual price but claim to have suffered loss in that (a) they would have purchased iCloud services at the (lower) counterfactual price and their valuation of iCloud services was higher than the counterfactual price and/or (b) they have received less storage than they would have in the competitive counterfactual. Apple objected that this was a claim for “foregone consumer surplus” based on consumers’ subjective valuations and that this did not constitute either a pecuniary loss or a recoverable form of non-pecuniary loss.

A majority of the Tribunal (Michael Cutting, Professor Alasdair Smith) concluded that Apple had not made out its case that the contested claim was bad in law, and that it was best left to trial given it raised a novel point of law and was best assessed in light of the evidence. In short, the majority concluded that the loss suffered could be characterised as either pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss – both of which are actionable in law. They found that such loss could be objectively evidenced, measured and aggregated in collective damages.

Waksman J dissented from the majority and concluded that the contested claim had no arguable basis in law and should have been struck out.

The Tribunal thereby, by majority, refused Apple’s application to strike out the contested claim and it will proceed to trial.

Philip Woolfe KC and Jack Williams acted for the successful class representative Which?, and are instructed by Boris Bronfentrinker and Elaine Whiteford of Willkie Farr & Gallagher. Proceedings are funded by Litigation Capital Management.

Bristol Airport Limited v Welsh Ministers [2026] CAT 30

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (‘the CAT’) has today dismissed Bristol Airport’s appeal against the Welsh Ministers’ decision to award up to £205 million in long‑term investment funding to Cardiff International Airport.

In contrast to previous appeals in the CAT, the Welsh Ministers accepted that the subsidy fell within scope of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (‘the Act’). This is therefore the first time that the CAT has considered whether, applying judicial review principles, a subsidy complies with various requirements of the Act.

The judgment addresses a number of significant matters, including

• The rescue and restructuring provisions at sections 19–20 of the Act, and in particular whether these requirements provide an exclusive means for awarding subsidies to ailing or insolvent enterprises;
• The approach to be taken in judicial review proceedings challenging compliance with the subsidy control principles, including the margin of judgment given to the public authority awarding the subsidy; and
• The operation of the air carrier subsidies rules at section 28 of the Act.

The judgment is available here.

George Peretz KC, Azeem Suterwalla KC, Harry Gillow and Will Perry acted for the Welsh Ministers.

The case has been covered in the press, for example by the BBC.