Azimuth Legal · Weekly Digest

Azimuth Legal weekly delta · 75 new · 84 dropped

2026-W29 · 2026-07-06 → 2026-07-13 · 75 new · 84 dropped · 1615 tracked total · All digests · Back to Legal

Executive Summary

Week 29 saw a net contraction in coverage: 75 additions against 84 removals, leaving the corpus at 1,615 items, down from 1,624. The delta is case-law led and concentrated in England & Wales / UK (35), EU (17), and Ireland (16).

The most material additions point to sanctions/russia-sensitive EU litigation, human-rights / intelligence-adjacent ECHR material, and a meaningful tranche of UKUT tax/chancery and administrative appeals. In practical terms, the feed is moving slightly away from breadth and toward higher-signal adjudicative material relevant to sanctions, public law, tax, and regulated-sector decisioning.

Top Additions

  • Traugott Ickeroth — EUECJ C-67/25 judgment on restrictive measures in view of the Russian Federation’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine.
  • A direct sanctions / Russia item, with a parallel Opinion also added in the same matter.
  • AL NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA — ECHR 138.
  • Human-rights decision touching jurisdiction of the respondent State in the context of alleged violations during CIA extraordinary rendition operations.
  • LT AND PM, Re Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 27.
  • Northern Ireland judicial review addition.
  • Scott Brothers Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKUT 259 (TCC).
  • Tax and Chancery Chamber matter.
  • NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health Board v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKUT 258 (TCC).
  • VAT zero-rating / construction services issue.
  • Javaid v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKUT 261 (TCC).
  • Another UKUT tax/chancery addition.
  • SA v Disclosure and Barring Service [2026] UKUT 232 (AAC).
  • Administrative appeals / regulated-access context.

Themes Driving the Delta

  1. Sanctions and Russia-related adjudication - The only Russia-tagged additions are the Traugott Ickeroth judgment and opinion. - This is the clearest signal for sanctions, CFSP, and restrictive-measures monitoring.

  2. Public law and judicial review - The Northern Ireland judicial review item indicates continued movement in public-law / state-action material.

  3. Tax, VAT, and regulatory decisioning - Multiple UKUT (TCC/AAC) additions point to ongoing relevance for tax exposure, classification, and administrative challenge work.

  4. Security, intelligence, and extraterritoriality - AL NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA adds a security/intelligence-sensitive ECHR decision with jurisdictional implications.

Jurisdictional Mix

  • England & Wales / UK: 35
  • EU: 17
  • Ireland: 16
  • Scotland: 5
  • Northern Ireland: 2

Court concentration - IEHC: 13 - UKUT: 6 - EAT: 2 - CSIH: 2 - KB: 1 - IECA: 1

This mix confirms a UK-and-Ireland heavy week, with the EU component driven by a small number of high-value items rather than volume.

Strategic Implications

  • Sanctions teams should prioritize the Traugott Ickeroth judgment and opinion: this is the week’s clearest direct signal on Russia-related restrictive measures.
  • Legal and compliance functions in regulated sectors should note the concentration of UKUT tax/administrative appeals, especially where decisions may affect VAT treatment, HMRC disputes, and administrative challenge pathways.
  • Human-rights / geopolitical advisory teams should track AL NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA for jurisdictional and extraterritorial liability implications.
  • The overall delta suggests a higher quality, lower breadth update set: fewer items, but more concentrated in sanctions, public law, tax, and state-security-adjacent litigation.

By the numbers

Tracked now1615 Tracked previously1624 New this window75 Dropped this window84

Themes driving the delta

By tag

case-law75 senior-court6 russia2 judicial-review1 intelligence1

By jurisdiction

England & Wales / UK35 EU17 Ireland16 Scotland5 Northern Ireland2

By court

IEHC13 UKUT6 EAT2 CSIH2 KB1 IECA1

New this window

Northern Ireland · Case · KB · Score 5

LT AND PM, Re Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 27 (03 June 2026)

The court heard rolled-up judicial review applications by two former police officers challenging the Northern Ireland Policing Board’s fixing of the implementation dates for their injury-on-duty pension awards under the 2006 Regulations. The judgment addresses the statutory framework governing disablement, permanence, medical referral, appeal routes, and the pension payment date, but the source text provided stops before the court’s final determination or remedy.

  • Applicants: LT and PM, both former police officers, challenged implementation dates for injury-on-duty awards under the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Reserve (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.
  • Respondent: the Northern Ireland Policing Board, which administers the Regulations and fixes the start date for injury awards.
  • Core issue: what is the correct operative implementation date for injury-on-duty pensions, especially where disability was established retrospectively after retirement.

Why it matters

The judgment is relevant to sovereign risk and public-administration exposure because it concerns how a public authority fixes pension liability dates under delegated legislation, with direct financial consequences for the state. It has no direct sanctions or export-control bearing, but it illustrates how retrospective medical determinations can shift payment obligations and trigger judicial review.

case-law judicial-review
Open analysis Source AI brief
EU · Case · Score 4

Traugott Ickeroth (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in view of the Russian Federation's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-67/25 (02 July 2026)

The Court interpreted Article 2f(1) of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, in criminal proceedings arising from the broadcasting of RT Germany videos on a website run by natural persons and funded only by voluntary contributions. It held that the concept of “operator” can include natural persons who, through a website operated by them, generate income only from donations or gifts, so the broadcast prohibition may be relied on against them.

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken in criminal proceedings against R, N and K
  • Issue: whether “operator” under Article 2f(1) of Regulation No 833/2014 covers natural persons running a website financed solely by voluntary contributions
  • The underlying conduct involved making RT Germany videos available on the traugott-ickeroth website

Why it matters

This expands the reach of the EU Russia-media restrictions beyond conventional commercial broadcasters to individuals operating monetised websites, increasing exposure for activists, publishers, and online intermediaries. It strengthens sanctions enforcement by reducing arguments that donation-funded or otherwise non-commercial dissemination falls outside the “operator” concept.

case-law russia
Open analysis Source AI brief
EU · Case · Score 4

Traugott Ickeroth (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in view of Russia.s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Opinion) [2026] EUECJ C-67/25_O (12 February 2026)

This is an Advocate General’s opinion on a German reference asking how Article 2f(1) of Regulation 833/2014 should be read in a criminal case involving dissemination of RT Deutschland videos via a public blog. The opinion addresses whether natural persons operating a website that is funded only by voluntary donations can fall within the term “operators” for purposes of the EU broadcasting prohibition tied to Russia sanctions.

  • Case arose from criminal proceedings against R, N and K for broadcasting RT Deutschland content through the publicly accessible traugott-ickeroth website.
  • The referring court asked whether “operators” under Article 2f(1) includes natural persons whose site earns only voluntary contributions/donations.
  • Regulation 833/2014 prohibits operators from broadcasting or facilitating broadcast of listed entities’ content, including via internet platforms and applications.

Why it matters

The opinion concerns the reach of EU restrictive measures into online publication models that are not classic commercial media businesses, but can still materially amplify sanctioned Russian state-linked content. That makes it relevant for sanctions enforcement, platform-risk assessments, and criminal exposure for individuals who host or republish blocked media.

case-law russia
Open analysis Source AI brief
EU · Case · Score 4

AL NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA - 31908/22 (Art 1 - Jurisdiction of respondent State for alleged Convention violations of a terrorist suspect's right during the United States ("US") Central Intelligence Agency extraordinary rendition operations : Remainder inadmissible : Second Section) [2026] ECHR 138 (07 July 2026)

The Court examined whether Lithuania could be responsible under Article 1 of the Convention for alleged violations arising from the CIA’s extraordinary rendition and secret detention operations, and it held that responsibility was capable of being engaged. It also found some complaints inadmissible because they were substantially the same as matters already examined by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, while holding that the applicant’s Article 8 complaint about incommunicado detention and denial of family contact was not in accordance with law and unjustified.

  • Applicant: Abd Al Rahim Hussein Al Nashiri; respondent State: Lithuania; case concerned alleged CIA secret detention in Lithuania from 6 October 2005 to 25 March 2006
  • Article 1 jurisdiction: Court said Lithuania’s responsibility for alleged Convention violations was capable of being engaged
  • Inadmissibility: Article 35 § 2(b) barred complaints substantially the same as those already examined individually by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Why it matters

The judgment reinforces that a European state can face Convention exposure for cooperation with US counterterrorism detention operations conducted on its territory, even where the detainee is held in a CIA programme. For sanctions and national-security risk analysis, it underscores that intelligence cooperation, rendition assistance, and secret detention arrangements can create downstream litigation and sovereign-risk liabilities.

case-law intelligence
Open analysis Source AI brief
England & Wales / UK · Case · UKUT · Score 3

Scott Brothers Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKUT 259 (TCC) (07 July 2026)

The Upper Tribunal considered Scott Brothers Limited’s renewed application for permission to appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to reinstate a withdrawn landfill tax appeal. It held that the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law and that its refusal to reinstate the appeal was not irrational or perverse, so permission to appeal was refused.

  • Parties: Scott Brothers Limited v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
  • Underlying dispute concerned HMRC assessments for landfill tax of £425,092 and a wrongdoing penalty of £148,782.20.
  • The appeal had been withdrawn orally during the FTT hearing, and the company sought reinstatement within the tribunal’s stated 28-day period.

Why it matters

This is a procedural decision showing how strictly UK tribunals may police attempts to revive withdrawn tax appeals, especially where the tribunal sees evidential prejudice to HMRC. For sanctions and national-security audiences, it is mainly relevant as an indicator of judicial deference to case-management discretion rather than as a substantive sanctions or export-control precedent.

case-law senior-court
Open analysis Source AI brief
England & Wales / UK · Case · UKUT · Score 3

SA v Disclosure and Barring Service [2026] UKUT 232 (AAC) (22 June 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed SA’s second appeal against the Disclosure and Barring Service’s decision to keep him on the adults’ barred list, finding mistakes of law and fact in DBS’s new decision. It held that DBS had departed from binding findings made by the first Upper Tribunal and had also made unsupported additional findings, but it remitted the matter back to DBS for a fresh decision rather than ordering removal from the barred list itself.

  • Parties: SA, a former healthcare assistant, v Disclosure and Barring Service; the case concerns retention on the adults’ barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
  • Holding: appeal allowed; DBS’s decision was unlawful because it made mistakes of law and fact.
  • Reasoning: where the Upper Tribunal directs DBS under s.4(7)(a) SVGA 2006, DBS is bound by the Tribunal’s findings of fact but may rely on additional facts; however, issue estoppel/Henderson v Henderson prevents re-litigation of issues already decided or that should have been raised.

Why it matters

This is relevant to security and risk audiences because it clarifies how finality, estoppel, and remittal operate where a regulator makes repeat decisions affecting an individual’s ability to work in sensitive roles. It shows the Tribunal policing the evidential basis for a protective list decision, which is directly relevant to how public authorities build and defend adverse-status determinations.

case-law senior-court
Open analysis Source AI brief
England & Wales / UK · Case · UKUT · Score 3

NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health Board v Revenue and Customs (VALUE ADDED TAX - zero rating - construction services - item 2 Group 5 Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994) [2026] UKUT 258 (TCC) (07 July 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health Board’s appeal over VAT zero-rating for construction services used to build the Bedroom Wing at the National Secure Adolescent Inpatient Service. It held that the wing was not intended for use solely for a “relevant residential purpose” under item 2, Group 5, Schedule 8 VATA 1994, so the construction services could not be zero-rated.

  • Parties: NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health Board v HMRC before the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).
  • Issue: whether construction services for an accommodation/bedroom wing in a secure inpatient mental health facility qualified for VAT zero-rating.
  • Holding: appeal dismissed; the Bedroom Wing was not intended solely for a relevant residential purpose.

Why it matters

This decision clarifies how UK tax law distinguishes residential accommodation from hospital-like secure treatment facilities for zero-rating purposes. For sovereign risk and public-sector compliance, it shows that secure healthcare infrastructure can be denied preferential VAT treatment where the dominant function is medical detention and treatment rather than qualifying residence.

case-law senior-court
Open analysis Source AI brief
England & Wales / UK · Case · UKUT · Score 3

Javaid v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKUT 261 (TCC) (08 July 2026)

The Upper Tribunal considered Mr Javaid’s application for permission to appeal against the FTT’s refusal to set aside HMRC’s Personal Liability Notices, which had attributed 100% of three Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 penalties to him. The new appeal point argued that paragraph 19 should be read compatibly with A1P1 ECHR so that the attributed amount was proportionate, but the Tribunal held the point could not be determined on the existing facts and refused permission.

  • Applicant: Kashif Javaid; respondent: HMRC; context was Personal Liability Notices under paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007.
  • FTT had upheld three PLNs totalling £3,212,815, attributing company VAT penalty liabilities to Mr Javaid as an officer responsible for deliberate inaccuracies.
  • Proposed ground relied on HRA 1998 s3 and A1P1 ECHR, arguing an attribution cap should be read into paragraph 19 and that the proportionate amount was nil.

Why it matters

The decision shows the Upper Tribunal’s reluctance to let litigants reframe penalty exposure as a human-rights proportionality challenge on appeal without a developed factual record. For enforcement-facing actors, it reinforces that personal-liability and penalty attribution disputes will be driven by evidence at first instance, which affects litigation strategy and settlement leverage.

case-law senior-court
Open analysis Source AI brief
England & Wales / UK · Case · UKUT · Score 3

Better Intelligent Management Ltd v Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Ltd & Anor (LANDLORD AND TENANT - RIGHT TO MANAGE - JURISDICTION) [2026] UKUT 257 (LC) (08 July 2026)

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the freeholder’s appeal and confirmed the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the two respondent RTM companies were entitled to acquire the right to manage their respective buildings. The appeal turned on jurisdiction: the appellant argued the FTT could not consider the effect of earlier claim notices that had not themselves been referred to it, but the Tribunal rejected that challenge.

  • Parties: Better Intelligent Management Ltd (freeholder/appellant) v Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Ltd and Phoenix Place Block B RTM Company Ltd (respondents).
  • Issue: whether the FTT had jurisdiction to determine the effect of earlier claim notices when deciding entitlement under the second claim notices.
  • Holding: appeal dismissed; the FTT’s determination that the respondents were entitled to acquire the right to manage was confirmed.

Why it matters

The decision is mainly relevant as a jurisdictional and procedural precedent on how statutory notice sequences are treated when entitlement to manage is contested. It has no direct sanctions or export-control significance, but it illustrates how formal defects in corporate documentation and notice timing can affect control of UK assets.

case-law senior-court
Open analysis Source AI brief
England & Wales / UK · Case · UKUT · Score 3

1st Alternative Medical Staffing Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Application for permission to appeal) [2026] UKUT 248 (TCC) (02 July 2026)

The Upper Tribunal reconsidered and refused the applicant’s request for permission to appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s VAT decision. It held that an appeal to the Upper Tribunal lies only on a point of law and that the applicant had to show an arguable, material error of law in the FTT’s decision.

  • Parties: Ist Alternative Medical Staffing Ltd v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
  • Context: the underlying dispute concerned VAT assessments on supplies of nurses and care assistants to NHS and private hospitals and care homes.
  • The FTT had held the applicant failed the exemption because it was not a "state-regulated institution" within Note 8 to Schedule 9 Group 7 VATA; the FTT also said that, even if that hurdle were met, the supplies would in principle be "closely related" to medical care but would fail Article 134 PVD.

Why it matters

The decision matters for sovereign-risk and compliance analysis because it shows a tribunal strictly policing the statutory threshold for appellate review in a tax case involving NHS-linked staffing supplies. It has no direct sanctions or export-control bearing, but it may affect how regulated service providers frame exemption arguments in sectors touching public healthcare infrastructure.

case-law senior-court
Open analysis Source AI brief
England & Wales / UK · Case · EAT · Score 1

Zhao v Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) Ltd (UNFAIR DISMISSAL) [2026] EAT 101 (10 July 2026)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered an appeal by Ms Chunxiu Zhao against the dismissal of her unfair dismissal claim against Govia Thameslink Railway. It held that the tribunal did not err in concluding that the dismissal was fair, in a case arising from emails the claimant sent to HR about a colleague’s possible move and her expressed concern that he would form a clique with another colleague because they were both Indian.

  • Parties: Ms Chunxiu Zhao v Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) Ltd; appeal concerned only ordinary unfair dismissal.
  • Holding: the EAT dismissed the appeal on the unfair dismissal issue and upheld the tribunal’s fairness finding.
  • Reasoning: the appeal arose from emails the claimant sent to HR raising concerns about a colleague’s potential station move and referring to race-based clique formation; the EAT found no tribunal error in treating the dismissal as fair.

Why it matters

This decision is relevant to risk governance because it shows a UK appellate tribunal upholding dismissal where internal communications were found to involve racially charged allegations and conduct inconsistent with an employer’s anti-harassment rules. It does not bear directly on sanctions or export controls, but it is relevant to compliance culture and the handling of sensitive employee complaints.

case-law
Open analysis Source AI brief
Ireland · Case · IECA · Score 1

Zapryanova v Niperovics (Approved) [2026] IECA 120 (03 July 2026)

The Court of Appeal dealt with an interlocutory appeal in a personal injury case, upholding the High Court’s case-management order requiring the plaintiff and defendant to exchange medical reports and related disclosure. It also refused the plaintiff’s recusal application, finding no reasonable apprehension of objective bias arising from the fact that the judge had previously sat on an earlier appeal involving a different issue between the same litigant and the court.

  • Parties: Tinka Zapryanova (plaintiff/appellant) v Martins Nipers Niperovics (defendant/respondent).
  • Holding: the recusal application was refused; the court treated the bias challenge as unfounded.
  • Holding: the appeal concerned an interlocutory case-management order requiring exchange of medical reports and disclosure in the personal injury proceedings.

Why it matters

This decision is relevant to litigation risk because it confirms that Irish appellate judges will not treat prior involvement in related proceedings as enough, by itself, to sustain a bias objection. It has no direct sanctions or export-control content, but it is useful on procedural control of long-running disputes and on limiting tactics that delay case progression.

case-law
Open analysis Source AI brief

Dropped this window

Northern Ireland · Case · NICA

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Re Application for Judicial Review [2026] NICA 10 (12 March 2026)

Scotland · Case · CSOH

Petition of Galloway Without Pylons for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 24 (10 March 2026)

Scotland · Case · CSOH

Petition of Allanvale Homes (Prestwick) for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 25 (10 March 2026)

Northern Ireland · Case · KB

Grant, Application for Judicial Review (Re Costs) [2026] NIKB 14 (11 March 2026)

EU · Case

ONAT AND OTHERS v. TURKIYE - 61590/19 (No Article 6 - Right to a fair trial - Inadequate judicial review : Second Section) [2025] ECHR 78 (25 March 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case · UKUT

The Cabinet Office v The Information Commissioner [2025] UKUT 114 (AAC) (28 March 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case · UKUT

Pro Drainage Ltd & Ors v The Traffic Commissioner for the Western Traffic Area [2025] UKUT 397 (AAC) (26 November 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case · UKSC

Mitchell & Anor v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber No 2 [2025] UKSC 43 (24 November 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case · UKUT

Casey-Hulme v Information Commissioner & Anor (Environmental Information: General - Environmental Information: Exceptions) [2026] UKUT 119 (AAC) (12 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Yang v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 340 (GRC) (10 March 2026)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

XTX Markets Technologies Ltd v Aviva Investors Liquidity Funds PLC (Approved) [2025] IEHC 651 (26 November 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

Webster and Anor v Meenacloghspar [Wind] Ltd, Shorten and Anor v Meenacloghspar [Wind] Ltd [No. 4] (Approved) [2026] IEHC 154 (11 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025005222 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005222 (13 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025004316 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025004316 (8 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025004088 & UI2025005288 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025004088 (4 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025003975 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025003975 (9 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025003841 & UI2025003843 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025003841 (9 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025003793 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025003793 (4 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025003635 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025003635 (9 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025003463 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025003463 (2 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025001976 & UI2025001977 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025001976 (3 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025001145 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025001145 (2 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2025001081 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025001081 (9 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2024002783 [2025] UKAITUR UI2024002783 (25 March 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2024000488 [2025] UKAITUR UI2024000488 (27 March 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2023005123 [2025] UKAITUR UI2023005123 (3 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

UI2023000129 [2025] UKAITUR UI2023000129 (3 December 2025)

Ireland · Case · IECA

The Director of Public Prosecutions v P. H. (Approved) [2025] IECA 89 (31 March 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

T.M. [Georgia] v The International Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 150 (10 March 2026)

Scotland · Case

T against P (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCALL 49 (12 March 2026)

EU · Case

Spain v Commission () and en Catalogne) (Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - Treatment of late notifications - Judgment) French Text [2025] EUECJ C-729/23P (27 November 2025)

EU · Case

SHIPS WASTE OIL COLLECTOR B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS - 2799/16 (No Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Grand Chamber) [2025] ECHR 83 (01 April 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Secretary of State for Defence (Ministry of Defence) (Central government) [2025] UKICO 346415 (28 March 2025)

Ireland · Case

Scully v Coucal (Approved) [2025] IESC 51 (27 November 2025)

EU · Case

SBK Art v Council (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of fundsCommon foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ T-607/24 (26 November 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Revenue and Customs v Breen (COSTS - application by HMRC for order under rule 10(1)(b) Tribunal Procedure (FTT) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 based on the respondent's conduct - unreasonable - exercise discretion - quantum - whether causal link required for each item of claim - costs award is compensatory not punitive - severity of unreasonable conduct is a factor in the quantum) [2025] UKFTT 1415 (TC) (24 November 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

Quinn v Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (Approved) [2025] IEHC 650 (26 November 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Phillips & Anor v Mulira (ADVERSE POSSESSION - right of way - factual possession - intention to possess - reliance on possession by predecessor-in-title) [2026] UKFTT 448 (PC) (09 March 2026)

Scotland · Case

Petrea Cooney against City of Edinburgh Council (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCEDIN 31 (13 March 2026)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

Ozkaya v The Minister For Justice (Approved) [2026] IEHC 268 (09 March 2026)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

O'Neill v Hudner (Approved) [2025] IEHC 669 (27 November 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Neo Atlas Ltd v The Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 335 (GRC) (09 March 2026)

EU · Case

N.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 38134/20 (No Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - Decision to grant final adoption order in respect of a child already subject to a placement order : Fourth Section) [2025] ECHR 75 (25 March 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

N.K. v The International Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 116 (11 March 2026)

Ireland · Case · IECA

N v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & anor (Approved) [2026] IECA 39 (16 March 2026)

Ireland · Case · IECA

Mount Salus Residents Owners Management Company Ltd By Guarantee v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) [2026] IECA 28 (12 March 2026)

Scotland · Case

Morag Drummond & Gareth Roberts against The Highland Council (Upper Tribunal - Local Taxation Chamber) [2025] UT 101 (05 December 2025)

EU · Case

MeSoFa v Commission and SRB (Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ T-524/22 (26 November 2025)

EU · Case

MeSoFa v Commission and SRB (Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Judgment) [2025] EUECJ T-523/22 (26 November 2025)

Ireland · Case

Merck KGaA & Ors v Merck Sharpe & Dohme Llc & Anor (Approved) [2025] IESC 49 (26 November 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

Mars Capital Finance Ireland Designated Activity Company v Walshe (Approved) [2025] IEHC 661 (25 November 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

M.G. [Georgia] v The International Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 151 (10 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

M&C Educational Training Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Corporation tax - appeal against denial of research and development allowances/credits) [2025] UKFTT 1506 (TC) (04 December 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

Libyan Blue Bird For Air Transport Co LLC v Executive Authority For Special Flights (Approved) [2026] IEHC 139 (09 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Leighton v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 358 (GRC) (13 March 2026)

EU · Case

KOSMATSKA v. UKRAINE - 9953/16 (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property : Fifth Section) [2025] ECHR 270 (04 December 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

Kelly v Store All Logistics Ltd (Approved) [2025] IEHC 653 (27 November 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Kamperis v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX - participation in Montpelier Scheme - exploitation of Double Taxation Agreement between the UK and the Isle of Man) [2025] UKFTT 1441 (TC) (24 November 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Kammac Ltd v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE - disclosure - whether Tribunal should exercise discretion to order specific disclosure) [2026] UKFTT 397 (TC) (13 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Kalinga Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs (CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME (CIS) - whether Appellant took reasonable care to comply with the CIS requirements - reg.9(3)(a) The Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005) [2026] UKFTT 368 (TC) (11 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

JR2025LON001564 [2026] UKAITUR JR2025LON001564 (10 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

JR2025LON000694 [2025] UKAITUR JR2025LON000694 (27 November 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

JR2025LON000432 [2025] UKAITUR JR2025LON000432 (2 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Johnston v The Information Commissioner (Rev1) [2026] UKFTT 354 (GRC) (16 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Imran v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2025] UKFTT 1424 (GRC) (27 November 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

I.A. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors, M.M. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 672 (01 December 2025)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Holland v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 360 (GRC) (16 March 2026)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

Health Service Executive v C.M. and Ors (Approved) [2026] IEHC 158 (12 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Hawkins v Abarbanel Ltd (Cayman Islands) [2025] UKPC 58 (02 December 2025)

Ireland · Case · IECA

Harrison v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana (Approved) [2026] IECA 36 (13 March 2026)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

GT v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) (Rev1) [2025] IEHC 220 (28 March 2025)

Scotland · Case

Gordon Dunn against Menzies Distribution LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCEDIN 22 (27 November 2025)

EU · Case

GOLOVCHUK v. UKRAINE - 16111/19 (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life : Fifth Section) [2025] ECHR 80 (27 March 2025)

Jersey · Case

Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Cabot : Costs) [2025] JRC 320 (1 December 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

G. [Angola] [Assessment Of Credibility] v International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Approved) [2026] IEHC 143 (11 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office FCDO (previously FCO) (Central government) [2025] UKICO 283015 (25 March 2025)

Ireland · Case · IEHC

Doyle and Ors v An Coimisiun Pleanala and Ors [No. 3] (Approved) [2026] IEHC 156 (13 March 2026)

England & Wales / UK · Case

Department for Business & Trade (DBT) (Central government) [2025] UKICO 340324 (2 April 2025)

EU · Case

Deldwyn (Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-477/24 (12 March 2026)

Jersey · Case

Camilla De Bourbon des Deux Siciles v Zedra Jersey Trust Corporation Limited and Anor (Court of Appeal : Hearing (Civil) : McMahon, Dunlop KC, McCullough KC : Contempt of Court) [2025] JCA 315 (27 November 2025)

EU · Case

BILYAVSKA v. UKRAINE - 84568/17 (Art 1 P1 - Positive obligations - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions - Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed : Fifth Section) [2025] ECHR 79 (27 March 2025)

EU · Case

Bazhaev v Council (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Judgment) French Text [2025] EUECJ T-608/24 (26 November 2025)

Northern Ireland · Case

A Health & Social Care Trust v AB & Anor [2026] NIFam 5 (11 March 2026)

Ireland · Case · IECA

2025 184 Ogidan v The Minister for Justice (Approved) [2026] IECA 32 (13 March 2026)

All weekly digests Back to Legal