CRL meaning

In this issue: Key PI and Clinical Negligence developments Road traffic accidents Public authorities and the state Clinical negligence Other PI and Clinical Negligence news LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI and Clinical Negligence developments AI in personal injury rehabilitation Artificial Intelligence (AI) is swiftly reshaping countless parts of contemporary life, advancing faster than most anticipated. Yet in personal injury, one thing endures: rehabilitation’s impact. For claimants, it offers a route to maximise potential and pursue the greatest independence and quality of life achievable. For defendants, it may lessen dependency and consequently diminish a claim’s overall worth. Against this backdrop, considering ways AI could augment—rather than supplant—the rehabilitation pathway is both opportune and vital. Authored by Pamela-Jane Riley, legal director in the Catastrophic Injury and Large Loss Team, and Nicola Perrott, senior associate in the Healthcare team at Clyde...

SRA board clears plan to regulate CILEX members On 1 July 2024, the SRA announced its board had approved proposals to oversee Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) members, following more than two years of talks and negotiation. The move is not final, though. In a statement issued the same day, the SRA explained that, should CILEX choose to proceed, any redelegation would still require sign‑off from the Legal Services Board. The board’s resolution could mark the culmination of a process set in motion in January 2022, when CILEX first asked the SRA to take over from its own dedicated regulator, CILEX Regulation Ltd (CRL). Since then, at least four separate consultations have been carried out and the LSB has undertaken an investigation. In reflecting on the change since CILEX approached the SRA, Anna Bradley, the SRA’s chair, said the regulator has thought 'long and hard' about the potential risks and benefits. It still requires LSB approval in order to proceed...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment dated 29 July 2024; it is no longer updated. For more, see the timeline Case facts Outline A reference from Portugal asks for guidance on how Article 101 TFEU should be interpreted regarding certain exchanges of information. Latest developments On 29 July 2024, the Court of Justice held that a solitary exchange of confidential data between rivals can amount to a restriction by object. That applies where the information is confidential and strategic, as it can disclose a competitor’s intended future conduct on the relevant market. Parties Applicants: Banco BPN/BIC Português, SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Portuguese branch, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI), Banco Espírito Santo SA (in liquidation), Banco Santander Totta SA, Barclays Bank Plc, Caixa Económica Montepio Geral – Caixa Económica Bancária, SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA, Unión de Creditos Imobiliarios, SA – Estabelecimento Financeiro de Crédito SOC, Caixa Central...