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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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 this issue: New technologies Information technology Internet Media Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Telecommunications Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information New technologies How new EU Product Liability Directive will affect tech and AI Law360, London: The EU has moved decisively to update its liability regime by adopting Directive ( EU) 2024/2853 (the EU Product Liability Directive) in October 2024, with effect from 9 December 2026. See: How new EU Product Liability Directive will affect tech and AI. Information technology DSIT unveils Cyber Security and Resilience Bill policy statement and scope The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology ( DSIT) has outlined the forthcoming Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, scheduled for introduction to Parliament in 2025. The measure will...
The Commission issued a study exploring trends, hurdles and prospects in algorithmic management, released a year and a half after it was finalised in December 2023. Observers link this notable lag to internal manoeuvring after a change at the top and view it as part of a broader attempt to buy time. Political considerations The former European commissioner for employment, Nicolas Schmit, openly backed workplace AI legislation, winning wide backing from centre-left EU lawmakers. By contrast, the incoming social affairs commissioner, Roxana Mînzatu, has adopted a cautious stance and has not pledged a binding measure. The present legislative term tilts further to the right than the last, with deregulation prominent on the policymaking agenda. Even so, despite the Commission’s current drive to pare back rules, tabling a bill on an issue prized by progressive lawmakers could prove useful later in the mandate. As a result, the...
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...
Directive ( EU) 2024/2853 (the EU Product Liability Directive) Directive ( EU) 2024/2853 (the EU Product Liability Directive) revamps the product liability framework established by Council Directive 85/374/ EEC (the 1985 Directive), signalling the EU’s resolve to tackle issues arising from the digital economy and new technologies. With digital and AI offerings now widespread, the EU has refreshed its legal benchmarks to safeguard consumers and enhance accountability. Following the European Commission’s withdrawal on 11 February 2025 of a specific AI product liability directive proposal, this regime will operate as the prevailing benchmark for AI-related product liability for the foreseeable future. Liability for defects now extends to digital offerings—software and AI systems included—with updated criteria for determining defectiveness. Manufacturers and other liable actors are responsible under the Directive for damage to protected legal interests arising from a product defect. It preserves the no-fault model...
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...
US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla found that Lipa did not infringe Larball Publishing Co and Sandy Linzer Productions' ( SLP) 1979 track ' Wiggle and Giggle All Night', because the Second Circuit clarified in 2024, in litigation over Ed Sheeran's hit ' Thinking Out Loud', that pairing two unprotectable elements lacks the requisite originality to amount to a copyrightable work under appellate precedent recently and clearly reaffirmed in that decision concerning popular music authorship and scope of protection. Awarding Lipa summary judgment, Judge Failla concluded that Larball and SLP failed to 'create a triable issue regarding substantial similarity' between Lipa's recording and any protectable components of theirs. She also rejected what she described as the music publishers' 'last-ditch attempt to rescue their case', noting that their 'newly minted merits theory' was advanced too late and, in any event, would not have altered the...
In this issue: Key developments and materials New technologies Information technology Internet Fintech Data protection Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Reputation management Telecommunications Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Key developments and materials Spring Budget 2025—key TMT announcements In the Spring Statement 2025 on 26 March 2025, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, unveiled a number of measures pertinent to TMT professionals, including £42m for three AI Exemplar projects, and the roll-out of fresh digital tools—such as voice biometrics and AI for customer services—under the Plan for Change. See: LNB News 26/03/2025 42. New technologies Will the UK crypto industry gain a genuine option between the Consumer Duty and...
Protection from Unfair Trading Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( Commencement No 2) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/272, reg 2, most of DMCCA 2024, Pt 4, Ch 1 will take effect on 6 April 2025. The provisions not commencing concern consumers’ private law rights of redress ( DMCCA 2024, ss 232, 234 and 235). Chapter 1, ‘ Protection from Unfair Trading’, supersedes the Consumer Protection from Unfair Commercial Practices Regulations 2008 ( CPUTR 2008), SI 2008/1277, as outlined in DMCCA 2024, s 224. In contrast to much of the remainder of the Act, Pt 4, Ch 1 is not designed to be a wholesale reform of existing statutory protections; instead, it largely preserves the prior legal effect, with minor modifications (see Explanatory Note to DMCCA 2024, para 1330). Many updates are definitional refinements that recognise the case law developed since CPUTR 2008 came into...
In October 2020, the claimant played the defendant’s Wild Hatter, a two-part game combining a fruit machine with a wheel of fortune. After triggering and completing the jackpot spin, her on-screen display announced a win of the ‘ Monster Jackpot’, shown as £1,097,132.71. The case in Durber centred on the mismatch between what appeared on her screen and the operator’s server logs, resulting in a drastic downgrade in the payout from a purported Monster Jackpot exceeding £1m to a far smaller Daily Jackpot of £20,265.14. The claimant pursued the shortfall between that figure and the Monster Jackpot. The defendant maintained that a random number generator had in fact awarded only the Daily Jackpot, and that a fault affected the game’s animations, erroneously presenting an incorrect outcome. It relied on its terms and conditions and pointed to prior rulings in Parker- Grennan v Camelot UK...
Is the ‘ Consumer Duty’ on UK financial services firms a panacea that helps curb over-regulation or a source of legal uncertainty and added stress? It all depends on the respondent and the lens through which the issue is viewed. Feedback to a recent consultation on a prospective regulatory regime for cryptoassets reveals a split across the sector on whether the Duty, which obliges financial firms to deliver good outcomes for consumers, is sufficient on its own to remove the need for detailed, rules-based requirements. The Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) faces demands to prove to ministers that it is genuinely committed to slimming down regulation. In a January 2025 letter outlining a raft of fresh initiatives to bolster economic growth, the FCA pledged to make sure future regulatory consultations ask whether the Consumer Duty could serve in place of...
In this issue: New technologies Information technology Internet Data protection Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Reputation management Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies CAA publishes UK SORA and updates drone pilot competence standards The Civil Aviation Authority ( CAA) has issued the UK Specific Operations Risk Assessment ( SORA) as an Acceptable Means of Compliance to UK Regulation ( EU) 2019/947, Article 11, effective 23 April 2025. It immediately adds Remote Pilot Competence standards within Acceptable Means of Compliance/ Guidance Material, and updates CAP 722B. A digital UK SORA Application Service for Operational Authorisation applications will launch in April 2025. Existing Operational Authorisations remain valid, with a transition for Operating Safety Case updates. See: LNB News...
The UK government has outlined further specifics of its pilot digital bond, known as a ‘gilt’, as it invites feedback from prospective suppliers (distributed ledger technology ( DLT) firms) and relevant financial sector firms on the technology and design to support its issuance. The digital gilt instrument, which HM Treasury calls DIGIT, will be digitally native, short-dated, issued on a platform operating within the digital securities sandbox, and independent of the government’s main debt management programme. The pilot aims to catalyse adoption of DLT across the UK capital markets, and firms have been asked how the gilt should be structured to best achieve this......
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: New technologies Information technology Internet Media Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Telecommunications Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information New technologies UK regulators seek AI guidance from industry Law360, London: The UK’s financial and data watchdogs have approached industry associations and company leaders to help shape how certainty around regulating artificial intelligence ( AI) can be delivered. See: UK regulators seek AI guidance from industry AI copyright measures further diluted in EU Code of Practice for GPAI MLex: Rights holders and providers of AI models report that obligations in the EU Code of Practice for general‑purpose AI ( GPAI) have been diluted again. The latest version, published on 11 March 2025, scales duties to a provider’s size, drops checks on...
In a letter dated 10 March 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority ( FCA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office said they also plan to convene industry leaders to explore obstacles stopping financial services firms from adopting AI. According to FCA chief executive Nikhil Rathi and Information Commissioner Jon Edwards, a recent FCA and Bank of England survey revealed that companies and trade associations harbour worries about embracing these fast-changing technologies. They noted with interest that respondents identified data protection and the consumer duty as among the top three regulatory barriers to rolling out AI across the sector, based on the survey responses cited by Rathi and Edwards. ‘ These findings appear to demonstrate a......
The European Commission has released the third version of the Code of Practice for GPAI models, intended as a key voluntary instrument enabling firms such as Google and Open AI to show alignment with the EU AI Act. Stakeholders in the talks have until 30 March 2025 to submit written comments, before a fourth and final draft that is anticipated to carry only relatively modest adjustments. See: LNB News 11/03/2025 62. Independent experts steering the Code have altered course from the previous edition, removing the key performance indicators that were designed to evidence compliance with the various commitments. The updated draft acknowledges that the Code should be read alongside guidance to be issued by the Commission’s AI Office, and also states that signatories will be expected to provide regular reports to the Commission on how the Code is being...
R (on the application of GB News Ltd) v The Office of Communications ( OFCOM) [2025] EWHC 460 ( Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The rising incidence of politicians stepping into atypical media slots will inevitably require OFCOM to address due impartiality and accuracy in news and current affairs more often. Achieving the appropriate balance is notoriously difficult: upholding freedom of expression whilst maintaining impartial and accurate reporting, all against a backdrop of numerous alternative, unregulated online sources, including social media and podcasts. The judgment supplies useful guidance and clearer contours to the existing framework. On the footing of the current Broadcasting Code, the court stated that OFCOM’s effort to stretch the Code so as to forbid politicians from presenting hybrid news and current affairs programmes was unsound. As a result, broadcasters enjoy wider editorial discretion when appointing...
The secondary legal Act sets out a series of alterations when compared with the draft that was published for public consultation in October 2024 (see: LNB News 21/10/2024 6), notably concerning the way the panel will operate, the manner in which tasks are undertaken, and the level of support afforded to national authorities. Panel operation The condition for the Commission to appoint scientific experts—previously framed as an absence of any conflict of interest—has been narrowed to a focused requirement of independence from any general‑purpose AI model provider, rather than a blanket prohibition on any potential interest. As the Act states, ‘the expert shall be neither an employee nor party to a contractual arrangement with such a provider for the duration of the term’. Accordingly, activity for entities outside the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence ( GPAI) market, as well as for right holders or think tanks, is not...
The current regime applicable to AI-related products—the EU product liability directive The governing product liability framework for AI-related products is Directive 85/374/ EEC, the EU Product Liability Directive ( EU PLD). In addition, claimants may pursue claims based on contractual liability or other forms of non-contractual liability that fall outside the scope of the EU PLD. Directive ( EU) 2024/2853, the revised EU Product Liability Directive ( Revised EU PLD), will apply to products first placed on the market or put into service after 9 December 2026. Products placed on the market before that date will remain subject to the existing EU PLD until its repeal takes effect on 9 December 2026. Under the EU PLD, consumers can obtain redress where they prove a defect in a product, personal damage or property damage (excluding the product itself), and a causal connection between the defect and the...
In this issue: New technologies Information technology Internet Data protection Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Telecommunications Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies Uncertainty looms as AI copyright consultation closes Law360, London: Lawyers indicate the UK government looks set to continue with proposals to reform intellectual property law so that businesses can scrape copyright material to train artificial intelligence ( AI), notwithstanding ongoing appeals from creatives for tougher controls. See: Uncertainty looms as AI copyright consultation closes. Artificial Intelligence ( Regulation) Bill The Artificial Intelligence ( Regulation) Bill, a private member's bill, has been introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Holmes of Richmond and received its first reading on 4 March 2025. This is the second...
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
