The UK High Court’s decision to award £3 million in damages against the Saudi government highlights the limits of state immunity when serious harm is alleged. The court made clear that unlawful surveillance and physical attacks cannot be protected simply because they are linked to a foreign state. By allowing the claim to proceed and ruling in favour of Ghanem al-Masarir, the court confirmed that UK law can offer protection to individuals targeted within its jurisdiction, even where complex diplomatic issues are involved.

Recent attention on the Chinese Embassy in the UK has left many people asking a simple question. What does the law actually allow when embassies are involved? While embassy buildings are heavily protected, they are not outside the UK, and the rules are more limited than many people expect. This article explains, in clear terms, how embassy protections work, why police powers have limits, and why some situations are handled through diplomacy rather than the courts.

In mid-January, Donald Trump travelled to Switzerland for urgent talks aimed at stopping new trade tariffs that were due to come into force on February 1st. The tariffs would have placed extra taxes on imported goods, potentially increasing prices for businesses and consumers. The talks came against the backdrop of an earlier and controversial proposal by Trump to buy Greenland, an idea that was firmly rejected by Denmark. Although that proposal was denied, Greenland later resurfaced in wider discussions about trade, security, and cooperation in the Arctic. Trump’s visit to Switzerland was therefore not just about tariffs, but about resolving longer-running tensions that could have had real economic consequences if left unchecked. 

A closely watched High Court case has brought Prince Harry and Elton John into a legal battle with the publisher of the Daily Mail, reigniting debate over press freedom and privacy in the UK. The claimants allege that unlawful information-gathering practices were used over many years to obtain private details and raise questions about how far newspapers can go in pursuit of stories and whether historic misconduct can still be held to account today.

The removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from his country and his transfer to New York has triggered global outrage and confusion. While the United States describes the operation as a lawful arrest and extradition, Venezuela and many international observers say it was effectively a kidnapping. At the heart of the dispute is a serious question: can a powerful country legally take the sitting leader of another nation by force, or does this cross a line that international law was created to prevent? 

In a closely watched High Court decision, Robert Gagliardi, a senior hedge fund trader, was awarded $5.4 million after successfully challenging his former employer’s decision to withhold his bonus. The case centred on whether a so-called “discretionary” bonus could be denied without proper justification.

Hogan Lovells and Cadwalader have announced plans to merge, a move that could reshape the top end of the legal industry. If approved, the deal would create one of the largest law firms in the world, combining global reach with deep strength in finance and business law. Supporters see it as a smart response to rising costs and growing competition, while critics worry about what happens when a small number of firms gain even more power. Either way, the proposal shows how fast the legal world is changing and how size and scale are becoming harder to ignore. 

Netflix and Warner Bros have been exploring a major acquisition that could reshape the streaming industry. While the deal initially appeared straightforward, uncertainty has grown after Paramount entered the picture with a possible hostile takeover. The move raises questions about control, competition, and whether the deal can move forward at all. Beyond corporate strategy, the outcome could affect how content is distributed, how many subscriptions viewers need, and how much they pay.

Standard Chartered has agreed to settle a large investor case worth about £1.5bn. The investors said the bank did not give a clear enough picture of past problems linked to Iran sanctions. The bank has not accepted fault, but the settlement shows how serious these cases have become in the UK. It also reminds big companies that clear public updates about risk can matter as much as results.

The Justice Secretary has announced a major change to the UK justice system. Jury trials will be removed for crimes that carry a maximum sentence of less than three years. Instead of being judged by ordinary people more cases will now be decided by a single judge. The government says this will make the courts faster but many people worry it could reduce fairness and trust in the system.

The UK’s 2025 Budget brought relief to many law firms by dropping a proposed tax change on LLPs, avoiding higher costs and major structural changes across the sector. While the decision provides stability, wider economic measures in the Budget may still influence client behaviour, demand for legal services and the work firms take on throughout the year.

A growing battle over algorithmic pay is unfolding as Worker Info Exchange (WIE) challenges Uber’s use of AI to determine driver earnings. WIE argues that the system is opaque, unpredictable, and potentially unlawful under European data-protection rules. If a full claim proceeds, the case could set important standards for how much transparency gig-economy workers are entitled to when automated systems shape their income.

This week’s spotlight falls on Trump v BBC, a rapidly escalating cross-border defamation dispute after the BBC apologised for an edited Panorama clip of Donald Trump. With a threatened $1bn lawsuit and competing UK–US legal standards at play, the case is becoming a major test of how media organisations navigate reputation, editorial judgment, and global distribution in the age of digital broadcasting.

As artificial intelligence continues to reshape creative industries, the High Court’s handling of Getty Images v Stability AI marks a defining moment for copyright law in the digital era. With Bird & Bird LLP representing Stability AI, the case is testing how far UK law stretches when AI systems trained abroad generate outputs on British soil. The outcome could set the tone for future battles between intellectual property and innovation and signal how courts will balance artistic ownership with technological progress.

HSBC has set aside $1.1 billion to prepare for potential legal costs linked to the Bernard Madoff fraud case. The move follows a court ruling in Luxembourg and has sparked new debate over how banks handle past scandals and protect investors. As regulators tighten their grip, HSBC’s billion-dollar safeguard may signal a tougher era of accountability across global finance.

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating the proposed $3.7 billion merger between Getty Images and Shutterstock, two of the world’s largest stock photo agencies. Regulators fear the deal could limit competition, reduce consumer choice, and slow innovation in the creative sector. As the CMA examines whether the merger would give the new company too much control over the digital media market, the case highlights growing scrutiny of big tech and creative industries and signals that the era of lenient oversight for large media consolidations may be ending.