Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
In the curious case of Fiona Harvey versus the streaming giant Netflix, the plot thickens. Netflix’s latest hit series ' Baby Reindeer' has set tongues wagging across the board. It charts comedian Richard Gadd (playing himself) and his real‑life ordeal with a stalker. Yet from the moment it aired earlier this year, weighty legal and ethical questions have hovered over privacy, commercial exploitation, and whether Netflix owed Ms Harvey a duty of care. Those debates centre on privacy, commercial exploitation, and the platform’s putative duty of care to Ms Harvey. Ms Harvey, reportedly the unwilling inspiration for ' Martha' in the programme, is not merely seeking the price of a subscription back; she is pursuing a $170m lawsuit. She alleges the show’s supposed failure to shield her identity caused defamation, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and infringements of the right of...
In this issue: Key developments and materials Data protection Reputation management Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Key developments and materials King's Speech 2024—key Information Law announcements At the first State Opening of Parliament under the newly elected government on 17 July 2024, His Majesty King Charles III outlined the administration’s priorities and planned legislation. For Information Law, notable strands are the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill and the Digital Information and Smart Data Bill. LNB News 17/07/2024 62 Data protection Court of Justice on retaining and accessing IP addresses to combat online copyright infringements ( La Quadrature du Net) In La Quadrature du Net and others v Prime Minister, Minister of Culture, Case C-470/21, the Court of Justice examined the legality of public authorities retaining and obtaining access to personal data—specifically IP addresses—for the purpose of addressing copyright infringements online. The ruling assessed whether such retention and access to data are lawful in that...
The European Court of Justice ruled that Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e V (the Federal Union of Consumer Organisations and Associations) may sue Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd in Germany on behalf of consumers, as the alleged breach—namely, failing to obtain valid consent for collecting users’ data—stemmed from processing users’ information in its App Centre. The court confirmed that representative organisations may bring actions where an infringement of a data subject’s rights arises in the course of personal data processing and results from the controller’s failure to fulfil its duty to give the data subject—at the latest upon collection—information, in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, in clear and plain language, about the purposes of that processing and the recipients of such data. A Berlin appeals court invited the ECJ to provide guidance on the consumer association’s case......
In this issue: News alerts delivered daily and weekly Fresh and revised content Recent Q& A There are no Information Law updates this week. Please look below for information on subscribing to our news alerts and for this week’s listing of new and updated content......
In this issue: General Election 2024 Data protection Cybersecurity Reputation management Lex Talk®Information Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content General Election 2024—parliamentary process, wash-up and manifesto pledges This News Analysis brings together practice area-focused coverage of the 2024 General Election. It features insights from subject specialists, Practical Guidance, news, analysis and journal pieces. Coverage spans the parliamentary process, the wash‑up period and key manifesto pledges. Within information law, it also explores Bills that fell during wash‑up—such as the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill—and the main parties’ manifesto promises on regulating artificial intelligence ( AI). It further assesses public sector data issues and what the manifestos could mean for them. See News Analysis: General Election 2024—parliamentary process, wash-up and manifesto pledges— Practice area coverage— Information Law... Data...
Parliamentary process On 22 May 2024, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, asked the King to dissolve Parliament so a general election could take place on 4 July 2024, and the King consented. As a result, Parliament was prorogued on 24 May 2024 and formally dissolved on 30 May 2024. The parliamentary timetable is set out below: 22 May: The Prime Minister asked the King to use the prerogative to dissolve Parliament 22 May: King Charles approved the request and a general election was announced nationwide 23 May: ‘ Wash-up’ period begins 24 May: Parliament is prorogued 25 May: Pre-election period of sensitivity begins (previously known as ‘purdah’) 30 May: Parliament is dissolved 30 May: Pre-election period starts 4 July: General election 17 July: State Opening of Parliament For an explanation of the ‘wash-up’ period and the period of...
Prospect v Evans [2024] EWHC 1533 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Since the decision in Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd [1980] 1 QB 585 concluded that trade unions could not sue for libel, doubts persisted about whether it was rightly decided. This judgment clarifies that trade unions can, in fact, bring defamation proceedings. It remains the position that certain organisations, including local authorities and unincorporated bodies, are still unable to pursue a defamation action. What was the background? Prospect, a trade union, issued claims for defamation and malicious falsehood against Mr Andrew Evans ( E), who was a member at the time of publication but is now a former member. E sought a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the defamation claim on the basis that the claimant union had no standing to sue in...
In this issue: Data protection Reputation management Public sector information Databases Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data protection Competing rights and the ongoing relevance of EU case law in the UK—in what circumstances can a data controller refuse to disclose third party identities in response to a data subject access request? ( Harrison v Cameron and another company) On 7 June 2024, the High Court delivered its judgment, deciding the Claimant had no right to be told who had received recordings of telephone conversations in which he had issued verbal threats against a supplier’s director and the director’s family. The Court accepted that, ordinarily, Article 15(c) of the Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( UK GDPR) would oblige the Defendant to provide those identities in reply to a data subject access request....
Abbot v The Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 478 ( GRC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling mirrors the approach in other recent decisions on the operation of the exception to disclosure under EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391, reg 12(5)(b), again stressing the considerable weight that legal professional privilege carries within our justice system. It therefore highlights the obstacles applicants will encounter when attempting to access documents protected by legal professional privilege, and that only ‘special or unusual’ circumstances are likely to be sufficient for the public interest in disclosure to prevail over the interest in preserving legal professional privilege. That said, legal professional privilege was not the Tribunal’s only concern when concluding that EIR 2004, SI 2004/3391, reg 12(5)(b) applied. The Tribunal indicated that the exception would have been engaged even without legal professional privilege, particularly because releasing the material would not have added...
Taylor v Pathe Productions Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 1475 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling will interest anyone contemplating a claim about a drama drawn from real events. It stresses that the programme must be assessed as a whole and in context, and not dissected scene by scene, bearing in mind the ordinary viewer, who will watch it only once rather than pore over a transcript. Crucially, it clarifies that although some viewers may take particular meanings from the Film, this does not establish that the Film bears those meanings for defamation purposes. The court considers the reaction of the hypothetical reasonable viewer: not naïve, yet not unduly suspicious; able to read between the lines, but not avid for scandal; and not preferring a defamatory meaning where other non-defamatory readings are available, or quickly assuming the worst when...
Harrison v Cameron and another company [2024] EWHC 1377 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment provides helpful clarification for data controllers on handling DSARs. It also confirms that company directors, when acting in that role and processing data for their company, are not controllers; the controller is the company alone. Article 15(1)(c) of the UK GDPR The decision carries important implications for the reading of Article 15(1)(c). It confirms controllers must disclose the identities of personal data recipients, not merely categories, unless an exception applies (ie identification is impossible, or the request is manifestly unfounded or excessive). Organisations may wish to revise internal procedures so the default is to provide identities rather than categories. More broadly, documentation and records should be reviewed and kept up to date to record recipient identities, so this information can be easily provided if...
In this issue: Data protection Reputation management State security and intelligence Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data protection Meta pauses plans to utilise user data to train AI model after EU and UK requests The Information Commissioner’s Office ( ICO) has confirmed that, following its intervention, Meta has halted its proposal to use Facebook and Instagram user information to train generative artificial intelligence models. The ICO acted to ensure users’ data and privacy rights are protected. Meta’s move aligns with its parallel decision for EU users after a request from the Irish Data Protection Authority. See: LNB News 17/06/2024 60. Council of the EU agrees on GDPR enforcement rules The Council of the EU has backed a common position among Member States on new legislation designed to strengthen cooperation between......
Drax Smart Generation Holdco Ltd v Scottish Power Retail Holdings Ltd; Drax Smart Generation Holdco Ltd v Scottish Power Retail Holdings Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 477 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal in Drax appears to have taken a commercially minded, substance‑over‑form stance when construing notification clauses. On one view, that marks a move away from the robust (and arguably overly stringent) approach seen in recent authorities, including the High Court’s decision in Drax and the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Decision Inc Holdings Proprietary Ltd v Garbett [2023] EWCA Civ 1284 ( Garbett). In Garbett, Newey LJ held that a similarly worded clause required the claimant to give an estimated amount for each individual breach, rather than a single global figure for the entire claim. Garbett can read as somewhat severe, and how far its reasoning coheres in...
Update to a recent blog post In an update to a recent blog post on its push to create AI for Europeans in ‘a transparent and responsible way’, Meta said it was disappointed by a request from the Irish Data Protection Commission (its lead EU privacy regulator) to postpone training its large language models on images, posts and other public content shared by adult users of Facebook and Instagram. The company, which owns both platforms, maintained it is highly confident its approach aligns with European laws and regulations, noting that since March 2024 it has kept data protection authorities across the EU informed and incorporated their feedback during development. Meta argued the move is a setback for European innovation and competition in AI, and will further delay delivering the benefits of AI to people in Europe. It also pointed out that using public data to train...
Camacho v OCS Group UK Ltd [2024] EWHC 1164 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling emphasises the need for exact drafting in contracts and workplace policies and procedures. In this matter, neither the employment contract nor the grievance process made it express that staff agreed to any re-publication of defamatory statements arising during grievance investigations. The court likewise observed that the grievance procedure’s core function is to resolve complaints and does not necessarily, of itself, inaugurate disciplinary proceedings. Advisers should counsel employers with care and precision to ensure their contracts and policies plainly and transparently define the reach and effects of these internal procedures where potentially defamatory allegations may surface or be repeated. The court also confirmed that the principles in Friend v Civil Aviation Authority [1998] IRLR 253 have only a limited application to the consent defence in...
In this issue: Data protection Reputation Management Databases Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data protection Meta faces 11 EU complaints over forthcoming plans to channel personal data into AI. MLex: The company’s revised privacy policy faces scrutiny by EU data protection regulators, after Max Schrems and his advocacy group lodged complaints across 11 European nations......
Meta is facing complaints from 11 European data protection authorities After announcing a privacy policy revision signalling it would use personal data to develop ‘ AI technology’, Meta now faces formal complaints from 11 European data protection authorities. Max Schrems’ campaign group NOYB has lodged cases with privacy watchdogs in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Spain, urging the regulators to urgently stop the change before it takes effect on 26 June. NOYB has specialised in strategic complaints, including those that led to the invalidation of Meta’s legal basis under contract for processing personal data for advertising. Since then, Meta has switched to the ‘legitimate interest’ legal basis. While the General Data Protection Regulation sets out six potential legal bases for processing personal data, the prevailing doctrine arising from data protection authorities’ guidance and decisions has......
In this issue: Cybersecurity Reputation Management Data protection Lex Talk® Information Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& As Cybersecurity NCSC shares advice for those at heightened risk to secure websites and customer email domains. The National Cyber Security Centre ( NCSC) has issued guidance for high‑risk individuals who already operate their own website or custom email domain, or who are looking to set one up. See: LNB News 31/05/2024 34. Reputation Management SRA revises its SLAPPs warning. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority ( SRA) has refreshed its strategic lawsuits against public participation ( SLAPPs) notice to solicitors. The updated alert adds clarity on what constitutes a SLAPP, sets out scenarios where regulatory action may follow, and offers more detailed direction. See: LNB News 31/05/2024 26. Data...
In this issue: Data protection Confidential information Key developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data protection Data Protection and Digital Information Bill lost in Parliament wash-up period The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill fell during the wash-up ahead of Parliament’s prorogation on Friday 24 May 2024 and its dissolution on 30 May 2024 for the UK general election scheduled for 4 July 2024. All unfinished business lapses at dissolution. First read in the House of Commons on 8 March 2023, the Bill was set to introduce notable data reforms. See: LNB News 29/05/2024 66. EDPB issues Opinion on use of airport passengers’ biometric data in accordance with EU GDPR The European Data Protection Board ( EDPB) has issued an Opinion on the use of facial recognition for...
The dispute stemmed from a 2012 agreement for the modernisation of DBS’ services (the ‘ Agreement’), under which TCS undertook to assume control of and operate DBS’ legacy platforms whilst creating new digital offerings. From day one, the programme suffered delays, prompting a reset of contractual milestones. TCS maintained that DBS was the source of those delays and, in particular, that DBS’ IT hosting provider, Hewlett Packard Enterprises ( HPE), caused a critical delay. DBS contended that the true cause was that TCS’ software was not ready to be deployed on the infrastructure owing to slippage in the development and testing of the software, and further said it bore no responsibility for HPE’s activities. TCS sought £110m in delay damages. DBS advanced a counterclaim for delay, together with claims tied to deficient software quality. A separate,...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
