United Kingdom: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Northern Ireland's Assembly has passed legislation establishing a Truth Recovery Public Inquiry into Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses operating between 1922 and 1995. The inquiry faces the complex challenge of building upon extensive prior research while navigating questions of scope, evidence handling, and balancing trauma-informed procedures with legal fairness requirements.

When beneficiaries request trust-related documents from trustees, a complex balancing act emerges between accountability and confidentiality. This analysis examines the legal framework governing disclosure obligations, exploring how courts weigh beneficiaries' rights to information against the need to protect sensitive settlor wishes and discretionary decision-making processes.

A detailed analysis of the recent Prince Harry privacy claim judgment reveals crucial insights into how courts evaluate allegations of wrongdoing when direct evidence is limited. The case demonstrates the high evidential burden required to prove serious allegations through inference, the importance of proper witness statement procedures, and the severe cost consequences of pursuing speculative claims based on insufficient evidence.

The Commercial Court's decision in E v F confirms that filing a challenge to an arbitral award within the statutory 28-day window does not permit parties to substantially amend that challenge months later. When a State attempted to amend its challenge 162 days after the award was issued, the court refused permission, emphasizing that the strict time limits apply equally to amendments as to original challenges.

The UK Supreme Court recently handed down its unanimous judgment in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026]. The decision is significant because it confirms that the standard of good faith required of company directors in performing their duties extends to their conduct, not merely their belief that they are acting in the company’s best interests.

Irwin Mitchell provides comprehensive legal news, expert commentary, and industry insights across key sectors. The firm's latest Leading Litigator Report reveals that 69% of General Counsels now view litigation as either an operational necessity or strategic investment, examining how in-house legal teams are navigating alternative funding, AI adoption, and geopolitical influences while managing risk and controlling costs.

Drink driving laws in the UK evolved over more than a century, from early legislation targeting visible drunkenness to the introduction of scientific breath testing and measurable alcohol limits. The Road Safety Act 1967 marked a pivotal shift by establishing the first statutory blood alcohol limit and roadside breathalyser system, transforming how authorities detect and prosecute impaired drivers.

Failing to provide driver details after a speeding allegation carries six penalty points, double the typical three points for speeding itself. This separate offence can trigger licence revocation for new drivers or totting-up disqualification, making it potentially more damaging than the original speeding charge.

When a person is diagnosed with dementia, questions often arise about their ability to make a valid will. This article explores the legal test for testamentary capacity, how capacity is assessed in dementia cases, and what options exist when someone lacks the mental capacity to execute a will themselves.

The UK Supreme Court's narrow 3-2 decision in The Kingdom of Bahrain v Shehabi denies state immunity to foreign governments accused of remotely hacking individuals within UK territory, establishing that cyber surveillance operations causing harm to UK residents fall outside traditional immunity protections. This landmark ruling clarifies the territorial tort exception under the State Immunity Act 1978 and may expose foreign states to liability for state-sponsored cyberattacks targeting UK-based individuals

The UK Supreme Court has ruled on whether sovereign states can invoke immunity to resist enforcement of adverse ICSID arbitration awards in English courts. Spain and Zimbabwe challenged the registration...

The English Court of Appeal has ruled that a state's ratification of the New York Convention does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity in enforcement proceedings. Does this decision create obstacles for investors seeking to enforce arbitral awards against states, and what strategies should parties employ when contracting with state entities?