by Dr Olena Chub, Visiting Associate Professor at University of Bristol Law School; Researchers at Risk Fellowship awardee, British Academy, Council for At-Risk Academics, and Prof Devyani Prabhat, University of Bristol Law School.

This blog outlines policy recommendations produced following a workshop at the University of Bristol in July 2025. A concise policy brief is available under Policy Bristol at: Secure Status for Ukrainian Displaced Persons in the UK and EU | PolicyBristol. The discussion below presents an extended argumentation for the key recommendations.

Introduction

NGOs, legal advice groups, law academics, and lawyers who work with migrant communities and specifically Ukrainians displaced because of the war in Ukraine to the UK and the EU (Poland, Czechia, Germany) have collaborated in gathering best practice and evidence on how to support displaced Ukrainians. The recommendations introduced below are based on a University of Bristol Law School workshop (July 2025) organised by co-investigators on the British Academy/Cara/Leverhulme funded project: Dr Olena Chub (Visiting Associate Professor, University of Bristol Law School; Researchers at Risk Fellowship awardee, British Academy, Council for At-Risk Academics); and Prof Devyani Prabhat (University of Bristol Law School). The event was held following the Chatham House Rule, and only participants wishing to be named are named here. (more…)

by Professor Paula Giliker, University of Bristol Law School

On 17 June 2025, the High Court of Australia (HCA) gave special permission to appeal in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN [2025] HCA Trans 47. The matter is listed for hearing in the HCA on 7 August 2025. AA involves a claim by the plaintiff who, in 1969 (then aged 13), was allegedly sexually abused by an assistant priest in a local church presbytery after being invited there to consume alcohol, smoke cigarettes and play on a gambling machine in the priest’s bedroom. At first instance ([2024] NSWSC 1183), the judge had found the Catholic Diocese to be vicariously liable for the priest’s wrongdoing and that the Church had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff. However, judgment was given before the game-changing decision of the HCA in Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41. As I have discussed earlier, in Bird, the majority of the HCA held that, in Australia, the principles of vicarious liability are confined to employment relationships. On this basis, the torts of priests, who are not technically employees, would not be covered by vicarious liability.  The HCA rejected the suggestion, found in UK cases such as The Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants (CCWS) [2012] UKSC 56 and in Canada that the relationship test for vicarious liability could be extended to relationships “akin to employment” (that is, relationships not technically of employment but practically very similar in nature). This, argued the majority, would produce uncertainty and indeterminacy. (more…)

by Sahar Shah, University of Bristol Law School and Joy Reyes, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

Mitigating climate change is one thing; climate justice is another – however, the two concepts are often conflated in political and media discourses. This is a problem because the two issues require distinct analyses and responses. Without clarity about the nature of, and reasons for, these distinctions, the injustices that stem from climate change risk being subsumed under broadly defined ‘climate mitigation’ efforts. Legal language provides an apt toolkit for clarifying the ‘justice-based’ issues at stake in relation to climate change – and for translating these issues from the theoretical realm into public and policy spheres. The concept of ‘climate reparations’ serves as a topical case in point. (more…)