Legal News

Misuse of AI in court and the consequences ( Ayinde v Haringey & Al- Haroun v Qatar National Bank) R (on the application of Frederick Ayinde) v Haringey London Borough Council; Al- Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and another company [2025] EWHC 1383 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling sets out explicit directions for lawyers who deploy AI, so that they remain within their professional obligations. The court also outlined what must happen when practitioners discover that they, their wider team, or their client has misused AI. Generative AI systems, including Chat GPT, are not a dependable source of legal research. They can offer convincing but inaccurate claims, refer to authorities that do not exist and attribute quotations to genuine materials that are not present in those texts. Both the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar...

A copy of the minutes can be accessed here, for reference: Online Procedure Rule Committee minutes of meeting 12 May 2025. Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) Agreement was reached on the minutes from the 14 April 2025 meeting, as presented (see News Analysis: Minutes of the OPR Committee meeting—14 April 2025). The action log recorded continued coordination and preparation for forthcoming consultations and events. Statutory instrument (item 2) Confirmation was given that the Online Procedure Rules ( Specified Proceedings) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/ 536, took effect on 30 April 2025, with thanks recorded for the OPRC’s assistance throughout. Attention then moved to the forthcoming Statutory Instrument ( SI), targeting advice to ministers by September to achieve agreement on which categories of proceedings should be covered in due course. Consultation planning and scheduling (item 3) The OPRC considered the approach to consultation. Particular stress was placed on...

Judge Robin Knowles decided Mozambique may add Safa's widow and sons to its proceedings, and that the High Court should remain the venue for the ongoing case, even if ultimately Lebanese law must be applied in full. The French- Lebanese tycoon had passed away before the judge delivered his decision backing the south-east African state in its landmark action linked to the 'tuna bond' corruption scandal......

The court allowed targeted amendments to the application dealing with misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty, on the footing that these did not introduce fresh causes of action and that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to permit them. By contrast, the court declined permission for an amendment advancing new causes of action concerning unlawful distribution of capital, because it lacked discretion to grant such permission (and, had it possessed it, would have declined to use it). Written by Martin Young, senior associate at CMS Cameron Mc Kenna Nabarro Olswang LLP. Ley and another (as joint liquidators of CL Realisations 2020 Ltd) v Suttle and another [2025] EWHC 796 ( Ch). What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on the outer limits of permissible amendments to heads of claim in the insolvency sphere, and on the...

Chuhan v Dechert LLP [2025] Lexis Citation 1273 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling indicates that fixtures integral to an employer’s premises, without any closer nexus to the business’s operations, are unlikely to constitute “equipment” for the purposes of EL( DE) A 1969. Illustratively, the judge contrasted a door in solicitors’ offices—which was not equipment—with legal texts, computers and telephones. This approach marks a distinction between the fabric of the building and the tools or materials used to carry out work. Although a County Court decision by a Circuit Judge is not binding precedent, it serves as a reminder that an employee injured by a defective workplace item that is not “equipment” will not fall within the protection of EL( DE) A 1969. Previously, such an individual might instead have pursued a claim for breach of the Workplace ( Health, Safety and...

Note: the CPRC has ceased distributing the background papers alongside the minutes; accordingly, this News Analysis is not accompanied by any documents elucidating the matters considered during the meeting. A copy of the minutes can be found here: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting. Welcome, apologies and introductory remarks (item 1) Proceedings commenced with a tribute to the Rt. Hon. Lord Etherton GBE KC, who had died earlier in the week. The committee’s productivity was commended, and the Master of the Rolls ( MR) referenced his twin capacity as Chair of the CPRC and the Online Procedure Rule Committee ( OPRC), formally constituted under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. A significant recent milestone was noted: Parliament’s approval of the statutory instrument conferring rule-making authority on the OPRC across the Civil, Family and Tribunal jurisdictions. It was underlined that the CPRC’s work remains vital and will...

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—12 June 2025 In this issue: Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Damages Funding arrangements AI and legal tech developments in litigation Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Notes from the Civil Procedure Rule Committee’s annual open meeting on 9 May 2025 confirm that fixed recoverable costs reforms for lower damages clinical negligence claims remain paused, pending further government direction. The Costs Sub- Committee Chair, Mr Justice Trower, indicated the government is considering how to proceed on clinical negligence FRC, with a formal announcement expected in due course. A broader FRC review scheduled for 2026 will address vulnerability provisions, while a separate stocktake of the present FRC regime is timetabled for October 2025. See: LNB News 11/06/2025 3. HM Courts and Tribunals Service has introduced temporary changes to the ‘help with court fees’...

Daniel Piccinin KC of Brick Court Chambers Arguing for the companies, Daniel Piccinin KC contended that the reworked litigation funding agreements remain damage‑based agreements ( DBAs) and, notwithstanding structural tweaks, cannot be enforced. He maintained the tweaks do not alter their essential character. He urged the appeal court to be “very careful” not to cure the perceived, case‑specific problem by thinking narrowly about collective actions and thereby inflict “a gaping wound” on the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which sets out the statutory definition of a DBA. The current appeals arise from four separate Competition Appeal Tribunal rulings certifying collecting proceedings. The businesses now face class claims on behalf of UK consumers that could expose them to damages running into the billions of pounds. Each of the matters engages issues triggered by the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling, known as PACCAR, which...

A Corporation v Firm B and another [2025] EWHC 1092 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling makes clear that confidentiality obligations reach across the arbitral hearing and process, capturing not only any transcript or note, but also documents disclosed by one party to others, as well as material created or prepared for, and then used or produced in, the arbitration, together with the award itself. Accordingly, lawyers and their clients must adopt robust confidentiality procedures to avoid any unauthorised release of such material, thereby preserving the privacy and integrity of the arbitral process. The decision also exposes the practical strains for international law firms with offices in multiple jurisdictions. Here, the court recorded that certain lawyers in the First defendant’s London office who had worked on the First Arbitration agreed to step aside from the Second...

The companies are among a number of class-action defendants seeking to challenge whether newly fashioned, multiples-based litigation funding agreements can be enforced. Claimants have embraced these structures to skirt a prohibition on their earlier financing arrangements. In 2023, Britain’s litigation funding market was hit when the Supreme Court found that many mechanisms backing sizeable claims were damage-based agreements ( DBAs) and could be unenforceable unless they met regulatory requirements. That ruling, PACCAR, erected a barrier for claimants and funders aiming to use Britain’s expanding collective action regime, where DBAs cannot finance opt-out cases before the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT). Following PACCAR, funders largely switched to returns calculated by reference to a multiple of the money provided, rather than a percentage of recoveries, said Chris Bushell, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP. If the Court of Appeal holds that PACCAR also...

The Solicitors Regulation Authority ( SRA) has recently authorised Garfield. Law to deliver legal assistance via AI rather than human solicitors. The fees are eye-catching: £2 for a ‘polite chaser’, and £7.50 for a letter before action that aligns with the County Court’s formal debt protocol. Co-founder Philip Young told Law360 the venture is designed to support companies and tradespeople in recovering modest debts through the county courts, while signalling broader ambitions. He said the team will keep building and launching further tools because his goal is to help as many people as possible. According to the former City commercial litigator, this approach should lower costs and smooth the path to the justice system across a wide range of matters. Each year, small firms miss out on billions of pounds in unpaid invoices, frequently because pursuing claims below £10,000 is too...

Hill (a protected party by Naomi Chapman) v East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EWHC 1241 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The claimant advanced a submission designed to sidestep the stringent consequences of the Swift v Carpenter calculation where life expectancy is short ( Swift v Carpenter ( Personal Injuries Bar Association intervening) [2020] EWCA Civ 1295). The court rejected that route, with the result that the proper basis for compensating the capital cost of securing new accommodation in short life expectancy claims remains unresolved. That question will need to be determined at a quantum trial, rather than on an application for an interim payment. In practice, the most straightforward course appears to be for the claimant to seek the entirety of the uplift in capital cost unless, when asked, the defendant puts forward an...

At the High Court, Judge Victoria Sharp rebuked Sarah Forey and Abid Hussain for submitting authorities that did not exist, having failed to verify them in two separate matters. The cases were heard together to weigh possible contempt of court proceedings against the pair, which she ultimately declined to commence. Forey, then a pupil barrister at London set 3 Bolt Court, supplied five fabricated citations which she accepts may have been drawn from AI-generated digests of Google or Safari search results. Sharp criticised Forey’s ‘worrying lack of insight’ into the wrongfulness of her behaviour. The judge also censured Hussain, a solicitor at Manchester immigration practice Primus Solicitors, who filed a witness statement citing 18 invented cases after depending on research supplied by his lay client. Hussain has apologised, yet the court said it was ‘extraordinary’ that he relied on his client for the...

On 2 June 2025, the CJC released its concluding report on the examination of litigation funding. You can access the report here: Review of Litigation Funding Final Report. Purpose of the review The review was initiated in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, which determined that some third-party litigation funding agreements ( LFAs) were, in substance, damages-based agreements ( DBAs), thereby calling their enforceability into question. The Government asked the CJC to advise on several matters, including: the implications of the PACCAR v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28 ruling the broader framework for the regulation of litigation funding the effectiveness and operation of current funding mechanisms in practice potential reforms to the litigation funding regime as a whole Final...

The Civil Justice Council, in its final report on litigation funding, pressed the government to enact measures confirming that litigation funding agreements ( LFAs) are not captured by the Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR judgment. That ruling found that LFAs amount to damages-based agreements and therefore cannot be used in opt-out class action proceedings. The CJC urged ministers to go further than the intended measures in the Litigation Funding Agreements ( Enforceability) Bill—scrapped in 2024 ahead of a general election—by ensuring LFAs are not classed as claims management services and are not required to comply with damages-based agreement ( DBA) regulations. The report said legislation should be introduced “as soon as possible”. For the avoidance of doubt, it added that any statute should make clear that common law LFAs encompass arrangements where the funder’s return is calculated by reference to the funded party’s damages or...

In this issue: Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Road traffic accidents Employer's liability Noise-induced hearing loss Lex Talk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® Webinars Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Key PI and Clinical negligence developments Mo J announces lower Court Funds Office interest after Bo E cut The Ministry of Justice ( Mo J) confirmed that, from 30 May 2025, interest on Court Funds Office ( CFO) accounts will fall following the Bank of England’s ( Bo E) 8 May 2025 base rate cut. The Special Account now moves from 4.50 to 4.25%, and the Basic Account drops from 3.38 to 3.19%. The Mo J says the changes balance CFO running costs with sustainable returns for clients. See LNB News 30/05/2025 11. CATJ releases Court of Appeal Civil Division Guide 2025 The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary ( CATJ) has issued the 2025 Court of Appeal ( Civil...

Three key takeaways from the report beyond the call to undo PACCAR's restrictions The Civil Justice Council’s final report, issued on 2 June 2025, set its most significant recommendation on persuading the government to legislate to overturn the UK Supreme Court’s contentious PACCAR judgment. It pressed for PACCAR to be reversed first 'to promote certainty' around litigation funding agreements, and for ministers to act rapidly with a statute that draws a clear line between contingency fee arrangements and third‑party funding. The International Legal Finance Association, which represents some of the largest third‑party litigation funders, applauded the call for urgent legislation to unwind PACCAR. Neil Purslow, chairman of ILFA’s executive committee, said they hope the government follows the CJC’s first and most urgent recommendation to legislate at the earliest opportunity to reverse PACCAR’s effects, which for almost two years have denied access to justice for...

Lloyds Development Ltd v Accor Hotelservices UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 1238 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? At its heart, the decision confirms that an ATE policy only suffices as security for costs if the court is persuaded there is no real prospect that it will fail to pay out in full. That assurance can be achieved by deploying an AAE to resolve doubts about the sufficiency and wording of the cover. Any claimant intending to rely on such a policy must be prepared to disclose it and, where required, to renegotiate or reprocure it so that the court is satisfied it can stand in place of a payment into court. Defendants who harbour reservations about the policy should engage constructively with the claimant and set out their objections with full particulars as early as possible, enabling the claimant to address them and...

Britain’s buoyant legal tech scene is, courts and legal services minister Sarah Sackman KC said, indeed exceptionally well placed to drive innovation and open fresh opportunities, speaking in the opening keynote at the main London International Disputes Week conference. Growth, Sackman — a former barrister at Matrix Chambers — told delegates, as we all recognise, does not arrive by chance; it must be constructed on robust, firm foundations: certainty, trust, and a climate that encourages invention. She told the room that, to stay on the cutting edge, the sector’s laws, legal processes and technology have to keep step with the needs of the modern world today. Innovation, she went on, is no longer a matter of choice......

Bevan v Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 1145 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling is poised to become a key authority on handling acoustic shock claims within occupational environments. The court squarely endorsed the Grindleford Criteria, devised in Parker et al (2020) ( Parker, W. A. E., Parker, V. L., Parker, G., & Parker, A. J. (2020). Acoustic shock: an update review. The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 134(10), 861–865), as the definitive framework for deciding whether an acoustic shock has occurred. Practitioners should be aware that claims resting solely on exposure—absent a specific acoustic event, close temporal onset of symptoms, sufficient symptomatology, and lateral consistency—are unlikely to succeed. The judgment confirms that establishing causation requires a demonstrable mechanism of injury. Generalised or ongoing noise will not meet the threshold in an acoustic shock claim; the claimant must show that their...