header-logo header-logo

Law digests: 17 October 2025

17 October 2025
Issue: 8135 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Costs

R (Bates) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court [2025] EWHC 2532 (Admin)

The Divisional Court ruled on the claimant’s applications for the costs incurred in bringing the judicial review proceedings and for ‘costs thrown away’ in the criminal proceedings in the magistrates’ court. The court determined that the decision in Murphy v Media Protection Services, which established an exceptionality requirement for awarding inter partes costs under s 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) in criminal judicial review, was wrongly decided and should not be followed. The court held that s 51, SCA 1981 preserved the High Court’s discretion to award costs in judicial review proceedings involving criminal causes or matters without requiring exceptional circumstances. The court found that the interested party had acted improperly and vexatiously in initiating a private prosecution, which justified awarding costs against him in favour of the claimant. It was concluded that the costs of the judicial review should be assessed on a standard basis and the application regarding costs of the magistrates’ court proceedings should be remitted to the magistrates’ court for determination

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll