Recent legal news
Executive disorder
The newly installed President of the United States of America has, since his inauguration, issued a large number of executive orders. He sits at his desk in the oval office with a big pen, smiling for the cameras as he puts his signature onto a document in a serious looking folder, holds it up to the attendant onlookers, and then gets on with the next one. It makes him look busy. But does it make him effective?
The Guardian: All the executive orders Trump has signed so far
Executive orders are not necessarily legally specific or effective documents. They are presidential instructions that direct executive branch agencies and staff to take (or stop taking) specific actions: see Campaign Legal Center, What Are Executive Orders and How Do They Work?
“We should be careful”, says David Allen Green in a recent post on the Law and Policy Blog, “not to accept everything at face value. For a flurry of Executive Orders may be little different from a flurry of Press Releases.”
There is also a high risk they can be challenged, as they were last time this man was president, and struck down or limited by the courts. Trump’s executive orders have sparked a number of lawsuits — challenging his plans for cracking down on immigration, for shaking up the federal bureaucracy and for reversing protections for transgender people, according to Reuters: Where do the legal cases against Trump’s executive orders stand?
“From Seattle to Boston and Concord, N.H., to Washington, D.C., judges have scheduled hearings in courtrooms across the country for the coming days where they will confront the first major legal battles of the new administration,”
says The Hill, in What to know about the legal challenges to Trump’s executive actions.
Trump has also threatened to “buy” Greenland, and even Canada, as though running a country were like a business, a simple matter of mergers and acquisitions, of corporate takeovers. But is it? The threats have resulted in phone calls with the leaders of those countries, which may have achieved a much smaller gain, that might not otherwise have been achieved.
Is Trump really a business man? Is he “transactional”? David Allen Green doesn’t think so. A transaction, or bargain, is a two-way processes, in which each side offers and accepts, in which there is an exchange of promises. Trump’s approach is anti-transactional. It’s about threat and concession; the agreement is only there to be repudiated or renegotiated, in order to get what he wants. See Why Donald Trump is not really “transactional” but anti-transactional
Cyber security
The National Audit Office has published a report that examines ‘“whether the government’s efforts to improve its cyber resilience are keeping pace with the cyber threat it faces”. The report points out that the cyber threat to the government is “severe and advancing quickly”. It says incidents with a significant impact on government and public services are likely to happen regularly, and departments have significant gaps in their system controls that are fundamental to their cyber resilience.
“The resilience of the hundreds of ageing legacy IT systems that departments still use is likely to be worse, and departments have no fully funded remediation plans for half of these vulnerable systems. As a result, the government will not meet its aim for its “critical functions” to be resilient to cyber attack by 2025.”
It says the government will struggle to catch up with the acute cyber threat it faces unless and until it “addresses the long-standing shortage of cyber skills, strengthens accountability for cyber risk, and better manages the risks posed by legacy IT”.
- Report — Government cyber resilience (.pdf — 367 KB)
- Summary — Government cyber resilience (.pdf — 131 KB)
Family law
The French law under which a refusal of sexual relations may constitute grounds for divorce is a breach of human rights, the European Court of Human Rights has held.
In the case of H.W. v FRANCE (Application no 13805/21) (Judgment in French) the Strasbourg court held that the French law, set out in Article 242 of the Civil Code, under which refusal of sexual relations may be sufficient to characterise a serious or repeated breach of the duties and obligations of marriage justifying divorce, constituted a breach of article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.
The Court concluded that the very existence of such a matrimonial obligation was contrary to both sexual freedom and the right to control one’s body and to the positive obligation of prevention incumbent on the Contracting States in combating domestic and sexual violence. The Court could not accept, as the Government suggested, that consent to marriage implies consent to future sexual relations. Such a justification would be likely to bar any possibility of prosecution for marital rape. Consent must reflect the free will to have a particular sexual relationship, at the time it occurs and taking into account its circumstances. Overall, the domestic courts, in upholding the divorce law, had failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake.
- A press summary of the case is available here.
- UK Human Rights Blog: Refusal of sex on demand in marriage still considered “fault” in French divorce
- The Guardian: Woman who refuses sex is not ‘at fault’ in divorce in France, court rules
Wills
The Ministry of Justice has dropped its plans to replace archived will documents dating back hundreds of years with digital copies in most cases, in order to save storage costs. The original proposal was to save paper originals only of those wills relating to the estates of famous historical figures, without considering who might later become famous or what kind of research into non-famous persons future generations might wish to carry out. (Paper is, after all, the most durable storage medium.)
Not surprisingly, there were howls of protest (surely “measured consultation responses”?) from historians and archivists, describing the plan as “sheer vandalism’. According to the government’s summary of the responses to its consultation,
“It was very clear that the consultation had generated considerable interest and concern for many people who were concerned about the preservation of original documents with historic and emotional value. The large majority of responses vehemently opposed any destruction of original wills. …
“A majority of respondents supported the digitisation of wills, but almost all in terms of this being a copy in addition to the original document. This was in part to guard against any possible loss of originals but also to make them more accessible for public inspection and access.”
Justice minister Sarah Sackman KC admitted that, in the public consultation, “Thousands of people expressed their fierce opposition to the previous government’s proposal to destroy millions of historic wills, some dating back to the 1850s.” Instead, the government has decided that “it will not pursue any reform that involves the destruction of original will documents and will look at other means to offset the costs of storing this vast archive”.
- Ministry of Justice, Storage and retention of original will documents (original proposals) and Consultation response
- Law Gazette, Government announces reprieve for archive of historic wills
- Today’s Wills and Probate, Consultation outcome: Government decides to preserve all original wills after public outcry against destruction
Recent case summaries from ICLR
A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4
CHILDREN — Care proceedings — Deprivation of liberty: Father v Worcestershire County Council, 29 Jan 2025 [2025] UKSC 1; [2025] WLR(D) 64, SC(E)
CHILDREN — Parental responsibility — Father: KL v BA, 27 Jan 2025 [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam); [2025] WLR(D) 61, Fam D
CRIME — Practice — Submission of no case to answer: R v Garrington (Scott), 27 Jan 2025 [2025] EWCA Crim 52; [2025] WLR(D) 57, CA
COSTS — Order for costs — Qualified one-way costs shifting: Birley (personal representatives of the estate of Mrs Rosa Taylor) v Heritage Independent Living Ltd, 28 Jan 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 44; [2025] WLR(D) 56, CA
DISCRIMINATION — Damages — Injury to feelings: Eddie Stobart Ltd v Graham, 29 Jan 2025 [2025] EAT 14; [2025] WLR(D) 65, EAT
INSOLVENCY — Administrator — Remuneration: In re Wejo Ltd (Poxon v Wejo Ltd), 27 Jan 2025 [2025] EWHC 135 (Ch); [2025] WLR(D) 59, Ch D
INTERNATIONAL LAW — Sanctions — Economic sanctions: Khan v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, 24 Jan 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 41; [2025] WLR(D) 44, CA
LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Council tax — Valuation list: Boffey v Dyer, 24 Jan 2025 [2025] EWHC 113 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 55, KBD
MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Fitness to practise — Misconduct: Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Health and Care Professions Council, 29 Jan 2025 [2025] EWHC 164 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 62, KBD
RESTITUTION — Unjust enrichment — Benefit: AMNS Middle East FZE v LIQS Pte Ltd, 28 Jan 2025 [2025] EWHC 150 (Comm); [2025] WLR(D) 63, KBD
Recent case comments on ICLR
Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:
Law & Religion UK: Street preaching: hate speech vs freedom of expression: Sleeper v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2025] EWHC 151 (KB), KBD
Nearly Legal: Homelessness — local connection and necessity: Hussaini v Islington London Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 22, CA
Financial Remedies Journal: ST v AR [2025] EWFC 4, Fam Ct
Law Society Gazette: High Court orders compulsory mediation despite defendant objections: DKH Retail Limited & Ors v City Football Group Limited [2024] EWHC 3231 (Ch), Ch D
Law Society Gazette: ‘Disordered and chaotic’ financial remedies hearing adjourned over procedural breaches: T v T & Ors (Disregard for Procedural Rules, Adjournment) [2025] EWFC 14 (B), Fam Ct
Law & Religion UK: Holding the Charity Commission’s feet to the fire: Avtar Singh Atwal & Anor v The Charity Commission For England And Wales [2024] EWHC 3451 (Ch), Ch D
Becket Chambers: When Children Act orders can be made for older children: In re T (Children: Publication of Judgment) [2024] EWCA Civ 697; [2024] 4 WLR 55; [2025] 1 FLR 77, CA
Doughty Street Chambers: The need to plead a positive case in defence if you have a positive case in defence: MAN v St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 1304 (KB), KBD
And finally…
Quadrillion claim clamped
A claim against a direct access barrister, her clerk and her insurers, for the tidy sum of £292,806,729,326,976,872,097,543,994.24 — a number running into quadrillions — has been struck out. The claim, brought by a Mr John Wyllie and two of his companies, complained of poor advice by the barrister but the particulars of claim did not disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, nor include a concise statement of the facts necessary to comprise a complete cause of action, Henshaw J said, concluding: “The time has come for this abusive, wasteful and meritless litigation to end. I have no hesitation in concluding that the claim should be struck out in its entirety”.
Wyllie v Joseph [2025] EWHC 157 (Comm), KBD (Henshaw J)
See also: Legal Futures, Direct access barrister defeats claim for three quadrillion pounds
That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading, and make sure you’re signed up for our email alerts. And you can now find ICLR on BlueSky.
This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation.
