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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Justice Richard Arnold granted Astra Zeneca leave to appeal and permitted lorries carrying about 175,000 packs of Glenmark’s generics to move on to wholesalers, provided they did not reach pharmacy shelves while the case continued at any point during those interim proceedings. In this way, Glenmark could keep its first-to-market advantage, while causing only minimal detriment to Astra Zeneca should the Court of Appeal later be persuaded to issue an injunction against supply. The judge said this approach maintained the status quo with the least possible prejudice to Glenmark’s position overall. The hearing was arranged at short notice, just days after the High Court refused Astra Zeneca an injunction to block the diabetes generic from sale while the court considered whether the patents supporting the branded medicine were valid in law. Glenmark, Generics ( UK) Ltd and Teva...
Cole v Marlborough College (incorporated by Royal Charter) [2024] EWHC 3575 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Although this was merely a case management hearing, the court reviewed earlier law (the Data Protection Act 1998), the current regime (the DPA 2018) and a prospective measure (the Data ( Use and Access) Bill) to identify the proper principles for assessing exemptions when dealing with DSARs. In this matter, the College’s position drew on X v The Transcription Agency LLP [2023] EWHC 1092 ( KB), asserting that, as a matter of principle, it was entitled to withhold documents from inspection. In X, the issue concerned whether the claimant should be given documents placed within closed bundles that were themselves being challenged. That issue arose because DPA 1998, s 15(2) contained an express rule permitting the court to examine documents holding the disputed...
A campaign led by Ekō is urging Meta to cease displaying targeted adverts to users. The effort refers to the settlement in letters sent to the company. ‘ This settlement confirms our right to object to the use of personal data for direct marketing’, Ekō notes in the project, which enables citizens to e-mail Meta to register their objections. O’ Carroll’s case could also significantly shape decisions on the pay-or-consent model, which Meta said it would pursue after the settlement, as the Commission prepares a final ruling in early April 2025 on whether such models align with Regulation ( EU) 2022/1925, the EU Digital Markets Act ( EU DMA). ‘ The potential ramifications [of the settlement] are massive, because it could provide a gateway not just for UK citizens, but also for a lot of Europeans to object to online...
Rukhadze v Recovery Partners GP Ltd [2025] UKSC 10 What are the practical implications? The majority concluded that the liability to account for unauthorised gains is strict in nature and does not turn on whether the principal might have earned an equivalent profit, or would have agreed to the fiduciary retaining some or all of it if permission had been sought. It is, in short, enough that there is a sufficient connection between the fiduciary obligation and the gain. What was the background? The facts are complex but can be outlined very briefly so as to frame the issue now before the Supreme Court. The dispute followed the death of the Georgian billionaire Patarkatsishvili (known as ‘ Badri’, a name familiar to aficionados of oligarch litigation). The claimants (and associated parties) agreed with his family that they would deliver services to recover his assets...
Automated decision-making and DSARs: access rights imply a right to explainability ( CK v Magistrat Der Stadt Wiendun & Bradstreet Austria GMBH) CK v Magistrat Der Stadt Wiendun & Bradstreet Austria GMBH, Case C-203/22 What was the background Austrian resident CK was refused a mobile phone contract after an automated credit check by Dun & Bradstreet Austria Gmb H ( D& B) rated her as not creditworthy. Relying on Article 15(1)(h) of the EU GDPR, she sought more detail from D& B on how the assessment was made, including the steps taken. When the Austrian data protection authority asked D& B to give ‘meaningful information’ on the logic underpinning the automated decision that used CK’s personal data, the company shared limited particulars but withheld other aspects, arguing the protection of trade secrets, notably its algorithms. The Federal Administrative Court in Austria ruled that D& B...
In this issue: Spring statement 2025 Data protection Cybersecurity Reputation management Public sector information State security and intelligence Lex Talk®Information Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Latest Q& A Spring statement 2025 Spring Statement 2025—key Information Law announcements On 26 March 2025, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, outlined a number of initiatives pertinent to Information Law professionals. These cover the modernisation of HMRC’s access to third-party information and its application of biometrics, together with the Regulation Action Plan and the Transformation Fund’s Frontier AI Examplars. See: LNB News 26/03/2025 39. Data protection Meta settles UK lawsuit over use of personal data for advertising MLex: Meta Platforms has settled a UK claim and agreed to stop using personal data from Tanya O’ Carroll, a...
In this issue: Data protection Cybersecurity Reputation management Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data protection UK data reform bill will be ready this spring, minister says MLex: The UK Data ( Use and Access) Bill is expected in spring 2025, data minister Chris Bryant said at a conference on 12 March 2025, following lawmakers’ concerns raised the previous day about the bill’s impact on EU– UK data adequacy. See News Analysis: UK data reform bill will be ready this spring, minister says. ICO announces new AI code and regulatory sandbox expansion to support growth On 17 March 2025, the Information Commissioner’s Office ( ICO) outlined five actions to balance data protection with economic growth. These include producing a statutory Code of Practice on artificial intelligence and automated decision-making, broadening its regulatory sandbox for data-driven innovation, softening enforcement of consent rules for...
Mojzesowicz told the Annual Conference on European Data Protection Law 2025 that the Polish government, which is presently leading the talks, is ‘very committed’ to concluding them within its term chairing the body representing Member States, a mandate running until the end of June 2025. She noted that the Commission shares this goal, saying there is genuine momentum and a broad recognition of how essential this procedural regulation has become, with everyone acutely aware of its necessity. The timetable, she cautioned, is exceptionally tight, with numerous ‘technical trilogues’, pointing to several March 2025 sessions where outstanding technical points might be settled ahead of a final political......
On 11 March 2025, lawmakers voiced worries over clauses on EU– UK data adequacy in the bill and pressed for a 'crucial' fix. Speaking at a conference on 12 March 2025, Bryant said they would complete the legislation and aimed to have it on the statute book by Easter, or within a fortnight after. He acknowledged the Data ( Use and Access) Bill was probably two or three years out of date and should have been addressed sooner. The UK is now on its third bid to overhaul its post‑ Brexit data protection regime, yet he remained 'very hopeful' the bill will satisfy EU data adequacy requirements. Bryant noted the UK has already held talks with leaders at the European Commission. Back in December 2024, the EU’s executive initiated its review of the adequacy decision that underpins substantial data transfers between the EU and the...
In this issue: Data protection Cybersecurity Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data protection UK Data ( Use and Access) Bill sees first government changes on accuracy checks and open banking MLex: On 4 March 2025, the UK government introduced revisions to the Data ( Use and Access) Bill (the Bill) moving through Parliament, seemingly aimed at bolstering economic growth in digital services and open banking. Among the updates, one modification to the Bill overturned an amendment inserted by lawmakers that would have obliged the technology minister to evaluate whether public authorities are consistently checking the personal data they collect and share for use in digital verification services......
These revisions form part of the government’s bid to remove changes inserted into the Bill by peers in the House of Lords, Parliament’s upper revising chamber. Addressing the issue of public authorities, the Minister of State for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, Chris Bryant, explained that the Bill is meant to establish a trust framework setting rules for the nation’s digital verification services, rather than dictating how public bodies handle data. He added that existing data protection law already obliges public authorities to ensure personal data they process is accurate and, where necessary, kept current. Consequently, the government could not proceed with the amendment, Bryant told MPs on a House of Commons committee examining the Bill. The Bill began its parliamentary examination in the House of Lords, where changes were made in late 2024 and early 2025 by...
In this issue: Data protection Cybersecurity Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data protection Deep Seek under scrutiny by Information Commissioner’s Office over data concerns MLex reports that the Information Commissioner’s Office ( ICO) is probing Deep Seek over data protection issues. The ICO joins a widening group of regulators in countries seeking answers from the Chinese AI developer, including Germany, South Korea, Italy, Australia and India. See News Analysis: Deep Seek under scrutiny by Information Commissioner’s Office over data concerns. Deepseek AI— What is it and what do legal teams need to know about it? Deep Seek AI is a sophisticated artificial intelligence ( AI) system created by Deep Seek, a Chinese firm......
What is the Deepseek AI model? Deep Seek AI is a cutting-edge artificial intelligence system built by Deep Seek, a company based in China. The organisation’s mission centres on stretching the limits of AI to deliver tools that empower enterprises and elevate human capability, while keeping advanced AI accessible, ethical and meaningful. Established in 2023, Deep Seek rose swiftly through the AI ranks by releasing free, open-source language models. Most recently it unveiled two high-end models: V3, aimed at broad use cases such as chat-style applications, and R1, tailored for reasoning-heavy work, including programming and maths challenges. R1 has drawn notable media interest by offering cost-conscious AI performance when set against leading US counterparts. Why is it having a big impact on technology markets around the world? Deep Seek AI is reshaping global tech markets largely through its cost efficiency. Reports suggest the company trained its system for...
Deep Seek has been asked to explain how it protects the data of UK residents, the ICO has told MLex. The ICO is now also among a widening group of jurisdictions scrutinising the Chinese artificial intelligence ( AI) developer, with several renewing their enquiries after the company revised its privacy policy in what appears to be an effort to meet elements of data-protection legislation. The watchdog confirmed to MLex that it has 'written to Deep Seek, requesting information on its approach to data protection for UK residents', a spokesperson said......
In this issue: Data protection Cybersecurity Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data protection EDPB adopts recommendations on 2027 WADA Anti- Doping Code Compliance The European Data Protection Board ( EDPB) has issued recommendations on the 2027 World Anti- Doping Agency ( WADA) World Anti- Doping Code. The recommendations assess how the WADA Code and its International Standards correspond with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( EU GDPR). Priority themes cover establishing valid legal grounds for processing, strict purpose limitation, and clear communication of individuals’ data rights. The EDPB stresses that EU Member States must align national anti-doping frameworks with the EU GDPR, and that National Anti- Doping Organisations, as controllers, are accountable for EU GDPR-compliant processing. See: LNB News 17/02/2025 37. EDPB adopts statement on age assurance for data protection...
Macdonald Hotels Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc [2025] EWHC 32 ( Comm) Relevant facts The High Court examined allegations brought against Bank of Scotland Plc ( BOS) by Macdonald Hotels Limited ( MHL) arising from the compelled sale of three properties: the Randolph Hotel, the Old England Hotel and the Marine Hotel (the Hotels). MHL contended that disposals occurred when valuations were unusually depressed, contravening implied terms of a facility agreement and, in relation to the Randolph, express provisions in a shareholders agreement. MHL further maintained that BOS ought to have allowed repayment by alternative means (including third‑party refinancing) and/or over an extended timescale. Resolving the dispute required review of years of dialogue, intricate documentation, and numerous detailed amendments. Careful consideration was required to identify and fully determine the issues arising in the case. This note concentrates on the funding...
ICO response to Google’s device fingerprinting decision In December 2024, the ICO responded to Google’s move to lift its ban on device fingerprinting (gathering and merging details about a device’s software and hardware to identify it) for organisations using its advertising products, with the change effective from 16 February 2025. See: LNB News 19/12/2024 73. This followed Google’s July 2024 decision to keep third party cookies. In its response, the ICO condemned Google’s choice to allow device fingerprinting for advertising as ‘irresponsible’ and underlined that device fingerprinting: requires consent — it can identify devices even when cookies are blocked or location is hidden; although commonly deployed for fraud prevention, the ICO reiterated it remains subject to the usual consent rules reduces user control — despite browsers now offering ‘enhanced’ tracking protection, the ICO said fingerprinting is not a fair way to track people online as it...
The Code joins an expanding roster of UK cybersecurity measures, including: the Code of Practice for Software Vendors the Cyber Governance Code of Practice the Consumer Io T Code of Practice the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 the Code of Practice for app store operators and app developers It also sits within a broader UK cybersecurity strategy that features a new UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill and likely updates to the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, with the prospect of further legislation—for example, the recent consultation on ransomware payments. Background to the Code The UK Government acknowledged that software must be secure by design (a term familiar to those versed in data protection law) and that stakeholders across the AI supply chain need certainty on baseline security expectations. Developed by the Department for Science,...
The ICO stresses it has acted swiftly in step with rapid advances in generative AI. Demonstrating this agility, it opened a consultation series in January 2024 focused on generative AI and data protection. Its aim was to set out how organisations might build and implement generative AI while meeting UK data protection duties, especially those in the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( UK GDPR). The ICO highlighted that adherence to the data protection framework is paramount when using generative AI, as such models are commonly trained on vast volumes of personal data. The consultation raised worries about insufficient transparency over how personal information is used within generative AI, which in turn creates the risk that data protection rights could be undermined......
In this issue: Data ( Use and Access) Bill Data protection e Privacy Cybersecurity Lex Talk®Information Law: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Data ( Use and Access) Bill MLex: On 28 January 2025, lawmakers approved an amendment to the Data ( Use and Access) Bill that would place a new duty on the UK Information Commissioner’s Office ( ICO) to publish an annual report on its enforcement. A further suite of changes, designed to safeguard copyright from web crawlers used to train artificial intelligence ( AI), was also agreed. Those updates could still be stripped out during later stages of parliamentary scrutiny. The government did, however, commit to requiring the ICO to issue a statutory code of practice covering data processing in children’s education. See News Analysis: UK data bill grows with...
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
