020 7405 4600

Accessibility Icon
From this Friday, 19 June 2026, organisations can no longer rely on complaints going straight to the ICO. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduces a new regime requiring them to receive, investigate and resolve data protection complaints themselves. Maggie Burns and Charlotte Smith explain what you need to know. The Data (Use and... Read more
Juli Lau, Helen Arthur and Shyann Sheehy look into the new Commercial Payments Bill and what it means for both public authorities and larger contractors. As referred to in our article on the implications of the King’s Speech 2026 for the construction sector, the government has announced new legislation which intends to improve commercial payment... Read more
Aanya Gujral and David Owens set out five top tips on how best employers can protect their interests when it comes to construction defects Construction defects are an almost inevitable feature of construction projects. The real issue is rarely whether defects arise at all, but how they are identified, managed and, where necessary, pursued. Recent... Read more
Olivia Peake and Simon Kiely examine the Privy Council’s decision in Baird v Goldgar, which clarifies the distinct tests for striking out an appeal for want of prosecution and abuse of process in the Eastern Caribbean, and reinforces judicial willingness to act robustly where delay has become inordinate. The Judicial Committee has upheld a decision of the Court of... Read more
In this article, Rachel Murray-Smith, Conrad Turnock and Helen Arthur explain the significance of Crest Nicholson v Ardmore Ardmore [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC); [2026] EWHC 1069 (TCC), one of the first major decisions to consider the scope of building liability orders under the Building Safety Act 2022 and its impact on available routes to recovery.... Read more
George McLellan, Jack Trevella and Oliver Dickie consider whether sports governing bodies should be amenable to judicial review. In 1993, the Court of Appeal rejected a claim for judicial review against the Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club on the basis that the Jockey Club was not amenable to judicial review.[1] Sir Thomas Bingham MR... Read more