Daily Case Law
Monday, August 31, 2026 · 12 decisions worth your morning coffee
United Kingdom

Phillips v Islington — High Court refused permission to challenge council-tax decisions

High Court (Administrative Court) · Nigel Cooper (The Rt Hon. The Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, 2021) · 2026-08-27tax

Background: Graham Phillips owned and ordinarily resided at a property in Islington. After the Foreign Secretary designated him under the Russia sanctions regime in July 2022, his assets were frozen and he said that he could no longer earn income or pay his council tax. His earlier challenge to the designation had failed. Although Phillips later…

Held: Nigel Cooper KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, refused permission because neither ground had a realistic prospect of success. Phillips could not qualify for the claimed statutory exemption because he was not detained in prison pursuant to an order of a United Kingdom court. Islington had a broad discretion under section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act…

Read the full analysis →

Australia

Novati Constructions — Court directs deed administrators to hand bank-guarantee originals to developer

Supreme Court of New South Wales · Black J (Dame Marie Bashir, Governor of New South Wales, 2011) · 2026-08-27breach of contractinsolvency

Background: Novati Constructions Pty Ltd (NCPL) contracted to construct a 10-unit apartment building for Hulak Coonanbarra Pty Ltd. The contract required security equal to 5% of the contract sum, which could be provided through retention money or two unconditional bank guarantees. Hulak initially retained money from progress payments, but agreed to release those funds after NCPL…

Held: Black J directed the deed administrators that they were justified in delivering the original guarantees to Hulak and would not be justified in delivering them to anyone else. Hulak had an immediate right to possession sufficient to support detinue: NCPL had represented that it had delivered the guarantees, and Hulak had released retention money in reliance on that representation.

Read the full analysis →

Turkey

Unnamed Public Administration v. Contractor — Court vacated recovery judgment for failure to examine possible prior deductions

Ankara Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi 23. Hukuk Dairesi · 2026-06-25breach of contractcivil procedureemployment

Background: A public administration and a contractor entered into service-procurement agreements under which the contractor employed workers, including security personnel. After judgments were entered in employment litigation brought by a nonparty worker, the administration paid severance compensation and other employment-related claims. It then sought recourse against the contractor for TRY 416,306.27, plus advance interest from the…

Held: The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal accepted the contractor’s appeal, vacated the judgment under Article 353(1)(a)(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and remanded the case for retrial. The appellate court agreed with the governing principle that, as between the contracting parties, their service-procurement agreements control recourse liability even though the administration and contractor may be jointly and severally liable…

Read the full analysis →

Kentucky

Scotty’s Contracting — Kentucky Court of Appeals reverses $22.5 million judgment and orders all claims dismissed

Kentucky Court of Appeals · Acree; McNeill; Taylor · 2026-08-28insurance coverage

Background: A VanMeter Contracting employee was killed and three co-workers were injured when a concrete form collapsed during a Kentucky Transportation Cabinet road project for which Scotty’s Contracting and Stone served as the general contractor. The workers and their families received workers’ compensation benefits and then sued seven Cabinet engineers, alleging that the engineers negligently failed…

Held: The Court of Appeals reversed and directed the circuit court to dismiss every claim. It held that Kentucky’s Workers’ Compensation Act made workers’ compensation the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy against VanMeter and Scotty’s, which qualified as an up-the-ladder employer. The plaintiffs could sue the Cabinet engineers as non-employer third parties, but they could not use an assignment and indemnity arrangement to…

Read the full analysis →

Ohio

State v. Dennis — Affirmed denial of inmate’s public-records request

Ohio Court of Appeals (Second District) · Christopher B. Epley; Hanseman; Huffman · 2026-08-28criminal

Background: Emanuel Steven Dennis was convicted by a jury of murder and tampering with evidence and sentenced to 16 years to life in prison. The Second District affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in 2022.

Held: The Second District affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request under R.C. 149.43(B)(8). That provision does not require a public office to give an incarcerated person records concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution unless the sentencing judge finds the requested information necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim.

Read the full analysis →

Florida

T.A.S. — Reversed and remanded to correct disposition orders to match the plea agreement

Florida First District Court of Appeal · Kelsey; Nordby; Neff · 2026-08-26criminal

Background: T.A.S., a juvenile, appealed disposition orders entered by the Circuit Court for Alachua County. T.A.S. argued that the written orders incorrectly classified several offenses contrary to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement.

Held: The Florida First District Court of Appeal held that the disposition orders should be corrected to conform to the negotiated plea agreement. It explained that a scrivener’s error is a clerical mistake in a written order, rather than an error arising from a judicial determination, that conflicts with the oral pronouncement or the record.

Read the full analysis →

United Kingdom

Hewitson — High Court quashes refusal of Parole Board oral hearing

High Court (Administrative Court) · S Karim (Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, 2025) · 2026-08-26constitutionalcriminal

Background: Darren Hewitson is serving concurrent sentences of imprisonment for public protection and had never been released. By the time of the challenged decisions, he had spent more than 18 years in custody and more than 11 years beyond the minimum term for his most recent sentence. Although then held in Scotland, he remained within the…

Held: The High Court held that fairness required an oral hearing. The Parole Board’s own provisional decision recognized that Hewitson’s mental health contributed to self-harm and risk, that prison might reinforce and trigger his negative beliefs and mistrust, and that a more therapeutic and trauma-responsive setting might warrant consideration. Yet neither the provisional decision nor the final refusal adequately resolved or…

Read the full analysis →

Australia

Fardous — Court returned management of her estate to her

Supreme Court of New South Wales · Sirtes J (Margaret Beazley AC KC, 2026) · 2026-08-28civil procedure

Background: Soraya Fardous sustained serious cognitive and emotional impairments following brain surgery in 2004. In negligence proceedings brought by her tutor, the Court approved a $4 million settlement in 2013. The settlement funds were paid to Australian Executor Trustees Ltd to invest and manage, with the earlier judgment observing that Ms Fardous was then incapable of…

Held: Sirtes J held that the application was properly treated as one under s 86 of the NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW), despite the 2013 orders not formally declaring Ms Fardous incapable or expressly making her estate subject to management. In context, those orders had placed her estate under the defendant's management in accordance with the Act.

Read the full analysis →

Florida

Pollock — affirmed the judgment without a written explanation

Florida First District Court of Appeal · Lewis; Bilbrey; Winokur · 2026-08-28civil procedure

Background: Casey Ryan Pollock appealed a judgment of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Circuit Judge Amy P. Brodersen presided over the matter below.

Held: The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in a per curiam decision.

Read the full analysis →

United Kingdom

Samsung v ZTE — High Court upheld Samsung’s 5G patent and found infringement

High Court (Patents Court) · Mellor · 2026-08-28intellectual property

Background: Samsung brought proceedings concerning several telecommunications patents and FRAND licensing issues against ZTE and related defendants. This judgment followed Technical Trial A and addressed EP (UK) 3,934,154, a Samsung patent concerning the design of synchronisation-signal blocks used during initial access to a 5G New Radio network.

Held: Mr Justice Mellor rejected each invalidity challenge. The court held that claim 1 did not lack an inventive step over LG 434 after examining the proposed sequence of steps from that document to the claimed arrangement and standing back to assess the alleged inventive journey as a whole. It also rejected ZTE’s contention that the claim merely combined independent inventions…

Read the full analysis →

Australia

Layton — Federal Court allowed three native title groups to discontinue their joint claim

Federal Court of Australia · Graeme Anthony HILL (Governor-General of Australia, 2025) · 2026-08-28civil procedureemployment

Background: Six named applicants commenced a native title determination proceeding on behalf of the Dhudhuroa, Waywurru and Ngurai Illum people in November 2023. The claim covered a substantial part of central and northeastern Victoria. The Native Title Registrar’s delegate, and later the President of the National Native Title Tribunal on reconsideration, refused to register the claim…

Held: The Court granted leave under r 26.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to discontinue the whole proceeding. Justice Hill held that the applicant had obtained the informed consent of the DWNI claim group as a whole, satisfying the relevant condition on its authority. Although notice of the June 2026 meeting was limited and might not have satisfied the…

Read the full analysis →

United Kingdom

The Local Authority v The Mother & Ors — Court approved adoption and refused further parental assessment

United Kingdom (EWFC/B) · Hesford · 2026-08-27family law

Background: The proceedings concerned “Storm,” a nine-month-old girl who had lived in the same foster placement since leaving hospital after her birth. The local authority sought a final care order and a placement order authorising adoption. Both parents opposed adoption and sought Storm’s eventual return to their respective care; the father also proposed long-term foster care…

Held: HHJ Hesford refused the father’s late application for an addendum parenting assessment. The existing parenting, cognitive, and psychological evidence was comprehensive, and there was no material evidential gap. Although the parents’ separation and the father’s recent engagement with domestic-abuse and substance-misuse services were relevant developments, they did not demonstrate sustained safeguarding insight or change. A further assessment would delay permanence,…

Read the full analysis →

Want this in your inbox every morning, filtered to your jurisdictions?
Subscribe free at dailycaselaw.com →
Full analyses at Case Law Wire. Summaries are AI-generated and are not legal advice.