Fountain Court Chambers
6 Experts
7 Contributions by Fountain Court Chambers Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
Explainability has become a key pillar of ethical, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) and is now a common expectation within developing AI laws and rules. This Practice Note explores the explainability of AI, covering:
What AI explainability means
Why explainability matters
Regulatory guidance on explainability
The legal context for explainability
Practical approaches to deliver explainability
For more on AI, see Practice Notes:
Artificial intelligence and machine learning—an introduction to the technology
Artificial intelligence—data protection
Artificial intelligence—intellectual property
Artificial intelligence in the EU—the key legal issues
The AI project lifecycle—a quick guide
Negotiation guide—AI contracts
Contractual considerations for the procurement of artificial intelligence—checklist
For AI contract clauses, including issues of explainability and transparency, see: AI clauses—Warranties.
For a timeline of key legal developments on AI, see Practice Notes: UK artificial
TMT
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note
This Practice Note sets out how artificial intelligence (AI) is currently deployed within the UK criminal justice system and offers informed expectations about future uses. Mirroring the path of a criminal case—from investigation through to sentencing—it identifies and evaluates the different applications of AI along the way.
It uses the working definition of AI from the government’s March 2023 White Paper, ‘A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation’, under which an AI system exhibits two key characteristics:
Adaptivity: systems are trained by detecting patterns in data that humans may struggle to perceive, and are able to generate fresh inferences themselves.
Autonomy: systems can reach decisions without explicit direction or ongoing human control.
Technologies grounded in machine learning will typically meet this definition, as they develop in a dynamic way through experience.
This definition differentiates AI from automated decision-making found in traditional logic-based systems, which rely on
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note explains how to seek leave to appeal (or permission to appeal) an arbitral award on a point (or question) of law to the courts of England and Wales under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) (England and English are used throughout as convenient shorthand). For an overview and general introduction to challenging and appealing arbitral awards under AA 1996, see Practice Note: AA 1996—challenging and appealing arbitral awards in the English court.
Leave to appeal an arbitral award—the statutory and procedural framework
Appealing an arbitration award on a point of law under AA 1996, s 69 typically unfolds in two stages as follows:
obtaining leave to appeal from the English court (which is required in all cases unless every party to the relevant arbitration agrees to an appeal (AA 1996, s 69(2))), and
the
Arbitration
PRACTICE NOTES
E&W Brussels I (recast)—enforcement of judgments
This Practice Note sets out guidance for enforcing a judgment in the courts of England and Wales by relying on the enforcement provisions in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Enforcement remains available after IP completion day (31 December 2020 at 11 pm), provided the transitional conditions in Article 67(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement are met. For help on those transitional arrangements, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners [Archived], and in particular the main section: Recognition and enforcement of judgments. Where the transitional regime applies, the rules and practice direction in force immediately before implementation day (ie 31 December 2020 at 11 pm) continue to govern procedure. In this Practice Note, these are described as old Part 74 (with particular rules cited as an ‘old rule’) and old Practice Direction 74A. For further
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
E&W Brussels I (recast)—recognition of judgments
This Practice Note sets out guidance on obtaining recognition of a judgment in the courts of England and Wales under the enforcement regime in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). Such enforcement has been available since IP completion day (31 December 2020 at 11 pm), provided the transitional conditions in Article 67(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement are met. For commentary on those transitional provisions, see Practice Note: Brexit post implementation period—considerations for dispute resolution practitioners [Archived], including, in particular, the main section: Recognition and enforcement of judgments. Where the transitional provisions apply, the rules and the practice direction in force immediately before implementation day (ie 31 December 2020 at 11 pm) will continue to be applied. In this Practice Note these are termed old Part 74, with particular provisions cited as an ‘old rule’. For further
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
E&W Brussels I—recognition of judgments [Archived]
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer maintained. It offers guidance on seeking recognition of a judgment in the courts of England and Wales for enforcement under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I. A judgment is only capable of recognition and enforcement under that regime where proceedings were commenced between 1 March 2002 and 9 January 2015. If this guidance does not apply, see: Which regime applies to enforce a foreign judgment?—checklist.
The Note examines Articles 32–37 of Regulation (EC) 44/2001 concerning the recognition of judgments, settlements, or authentic instruments. It summarises the general rules, then considers whether a formal application for recognition is required. It addresses applications for recognition both in England and Wales and in an EU Member State.
It also explores, in some detail, the possible bases for refusing recognition, including:
a judgment entered in
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
ARCHIVED :
This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, the recast Brussels I, brought significant alterations to how judgments from other EU Member States are enforced in England under the new framework. These reforms shift the onus for having a judgment from one EU Member State, the State of Origin, acknowledged or enforced in another, the State of Enforcement, away from the party seeking recognition or enforcement there. Instead, the responsibility now lies with the party opposing recognition or enforcement to demonstrate one of the narrow refusal grounds. At the heart of these updates is removing the need to obtain a declaration of enforceability. Under Regulation (EC) 44/2001, Brussels I, a party seeking to enforce a judgment from elsewhere in the EU had to obtain a declaration in the State of Enforcement that judgment was
Dispute Resolution
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
