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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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 Internet Data protection Media 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 Useful information New technologies European privacy regulators caution that Deep Seek, a generative artificial intelligence ( AI) system built by Chinese developers, raises major data protection issues. The tool achieved rapid worldwide traction in the week beginning 27 January 2025, especially once released as a mobile app. See News Analysis: China’s Deep Seek AI model poses fresh concerns for EU and UK data regulators. Despite President Donald Trump fulfilling a campaign pledge to revoke it, parts of a Biden-era executive order aimed at curbing AI security and safety risks are expected to endure. Rather than being...
The developer’s privacy notice states that all user information is transmitted to China, where it is retained indefinitely, and it makes no reference to European data protection law or any lawful basis for processing personal data. Although the model’s apparently strong performance on a modest training budget has depressed the share prices of US technology companies, consumer organisations in Europe have begun contacting Italy’s Data Protection Authority ( DPA), noted for proactively challenging Open AI two years ago over comparable issues linked to the launch of Chat GPT. The user terms for the Deep Seek generative AI application, jointly controlled by two Chinese companies, present multiple concerns for authorities responsible for enforcing the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation ( EU) 2016/679 ( EU GDOR). All personal data is stored on servers located in China. Transfers will be “in...
What does the advice cover? The CMA outlines six compliance principles grounded in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 ( SI 2008/1277). These principles are intended to help TRPs grasp their legal responsibilities and sustain a fair, transparent trading setting, thereby reducing the risk of consumer harm. For each principle, the guidance defines key terms and concepts, sets out why the CMA expects TRPs to adhere to it, and gives practical examples of practices likely to achieve the aim versus those that are not. The scope covers TRPs’ commercial practices on any channel, including: websites apps social media adverts posters brochures What are the key takeaways for trader recommendation platforms ( TRPs)? TRPs should consider the six compliance principles below. The headline points for each are: Principle 1— Representations made by TRPs to...
Bates v Rubython and Business F1 Magazine [2024] EWHC 2706 ( KB) What are the practical implications of the case? The court first addressed applications to excise passages from the first defendant’s witness statement and from the defence, on the footing that they strayed beyond matters relevant to the pleaded positions on pre‑existing poor reputation and serious harm. The bid to strike out those passages succeeded. The application also prompted analysis of Burstein particulars—background matters directly tied to the defamatory sting which, if proved, may mitigate damages. The ruling underscores that such particulars must be tightly focused, directly relevant, and within the publishees’ knowledge to be relied upon. In addition, a defendant who does not plead truth cannot, save under the Burstein rule, adduce evidence tending to the truth of the libel. On serious harm and alleged bad reputation, the judge considered a...
Maximilian Schrems v Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd , Case C-446/21 What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling in Schrems v Meta Platforms Ireland arrives 14 months after the Court of Justice, in Meta vs Bundeskartellamt ( Case C‑252/21), concluded that merely accessing a site or app does not, in itself, make a user’s personal data manifestly public—thereby eliminating reliance by a social network on Article 9(1)(e) of Regulation ( EU) 2016/679, the General Data Protection Regulation ( EU GDPR). Schrems v Meta Platforms Ireland narrows the scope for processing special category data on social platforms and offers significant clarification on handling data that has been manifestly made public (and where explicit consent is invoked). Notably, it emphasises the nexus between a person issuing a public statement—which can render particular information manifestly public—and a platform’s deployment of pixels and cookies to track online...
Some of the world’s largest tech and AI bosses occupied front-row seats at Trump’s 20 January 2025 swearing-in, after their firms each contributed US$1m to his inaugural fund. Among them were Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Open AI’s Sam Altman. Another Silicon Valley heavyweight expected to hold considerable sway, X Corp owner Elon Musk — a past advocate of AI rules — was also present. Trump is already highlighting his connections with the AI sector. On 22 January 2025 he unveiled a joint venture, pledging up to US$500bn for AI-linked infrastructure, from a new alliance between Open AI, Oracle and Soft Bank. Yet, despite such headline-grabbing AI announcements, clear direction on forthcoming AI regulation may take months, pending firm guidance from Trump appointees. During his first term, Trump largely avoided heavy-handed AI oversight, instead issuing two AI-focused executive orders. A 2019 order aimed to...
In this issue: New technologies Information technology Internet 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 Useful information New technologies How AI’s ‘intended purpose’ could define companies’ EU regulatory burden MLex reports that the EU’s AI Act—the first comprehensive regime for artificial intelligence—places most due diligence duties on vendors of AI systems whose stated purpose presents elevated risks to people’s health or fundamental rights. See: How AI’s ‘intended purpose’ could define companies’ EU regulatory burden. Government responds to Parliament’s report on AI governance The UK Parliament has issued the government’s reply to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s AI governance report. The government intends to consult shortly on AI‑specific laws for the most powerful models, will put the AI...
The King’s youngest son has settled his claim against News Group Newspapers Ltd., the company behind The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World, which closed in 2011, just a day before a High Court trial over alleged privacy breaches by unlawful means was set to commence. Labour peer Tom Watson, who had also been suing the publisher, alleging he was targeted while a junior minister, likewise reached a settlement in his own case. In a statement delivered in court by Prince Harry’s counsel, David Sherborne of 5RB, News Group extended to the royal a ‘full and unequivocal apology’ for the serious intrusions into his private life, ‘including instances of unlawful activity carried out by private investigators acting for The Sun’. The publisher has agreed to pay ‘substantial damages’, Sherborne confirmed. News Group further apologised for the...
On 14 January 2024, the ASA released refreshed guidance on claims about promotional savings and discounts. There is plenty of shared ground between the ASA and the CMA, yet there are notable differences in how they handle online discount and savings assertions—most notably ‘was/now’ pricing. The overlap is real, but not absolute. WAS pretty reasonable and clear/ NOW it’s not! This territory had seemed settled and largely uncontentious for years, until the CMA chose to shift the goalposts in a way that caught online retailers off guard. In its recent case concerning online mattress retailers, the CMA introduced an entirely new and additional requirement for was/now discount claims. That stipulation is not applied in the same way in any other country and has never previously applied here in the UK. It does not flow from legislation; rather, the CMA appears to have conjured it....
Where this substantial compliance burden ultimately settles may turn on the idea of ‘intended purpose’—defined in the EU AI Act as ‘the use for which an AI system is intended by the provider, including the specific context and conditions of use.’ Drawn from EU product safety law, of which the EU AI Act is a standout example, the concept sits awkwardly with general-purpose AI ( GPAI) such as Open AI’s Chat GPT and Microsoft’s Copilot, which lack a singular aim and can execute a wide range of tasks. What, then, is the intended purpose of a system built for innumerable applications? Who carries the duty of due diligence when a GPAI supports a high-risk use? What regulatory exposure do users face when they step beyond a system’s stated purpose? These questions—and more—are likely to preoccupy the...
What impact is AI having on the telecoms market? Increased operational efficiency Arguably the most frequently cited advantage of AI in telecoms is improved network effectiveness. It can be delivered in three principal ways: predictive maintenance—leveraging network data to foresee likely equipment faults before they happen, allowing preventative upkeep dynamic network management—automated systems can apportion resources in real time according to demand, boosting overall performance fault detection and resolution— AI-driven tools swiftly spot and diagnose network issues, propose remedies and support faster restoration Taken together, these measures deliver additional network efficiency and support enhanced performance. They also expedite fault resolution and enable preventative maintenance activities. Making customer support more efficient As a condition of operating in the UK, CSPs (especially those targeting residential customers) must comply with a suite of consumer protection rules (primarily contained in Ofcom’s General Conditions of...
In this issue: New technologies Media Internet 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 DSIT unveils comprehensive AI action plan to boost UK economy DSIT, the Prime Minister’s Office at 10 Downing Street, The Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP and The Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP have unveiled an AI Opportunities Action Plan. It sets out 50 proposals to stimulate artificial intelligence growth in the UK. Headline measures include a major uplift in public compute capacity and the launch of a National Data Library. Government has secured £14bn of private sector investment and commitments to create 13,250 new roles in the AI...
The government made clear that it would tailor AI oversight to serve the UK's needs and set up a new AI champion for financial services to work alongside the state on this agenda. Recognising that regulatory models vary worldwide, the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said in a speech delivered at University College London, where he referred to the UK's post- Brexit freedom from EU legacy rules, that the country can steer its own regulatory path. He added that, in setting rules for AI affecting financial services and other industries, the nation will back innovation while ensuring the framework is right and carefully and tightly designed. Before imposing regulation, he said, the UK will test and learn about AI in practice so that any measures are proportionate and firmly rooted in science. The government will appoint AI champions in......
EU database The European Commission will set up, run and oversee an EU database for high-risk AI systems from 2 August 2026. Before putting certain high-risk AI systems on the market or into operation, the provider must register — either directly or via an authorised representative — both themselves and the system in this database. The repository will also hold entries for non-high-risk AI systems. Most fields will be public, user-friendly, easy to navigate and machine-readable. Its purpose is to uphold fundamental rights and the safe deployment of AI through greater transparency and accountability. It will also enable supervisory authorities to track high-risk AI systems and verify that they satisfy applicable requirements. Registering Annex III high-risk AI systems The registration duty under Article 49 of Regulation ( EU) 2024/1689 (the EU AI Act) covers specified high-risk AI systems. Under the Act, high-risk AI systems are those deemed to...
Draft political statement In a preliminary political text, EU countries urge the Commission to assess whether certain online platforms should face additional rules as part of the forthcoming AVMSD review, scheduled to conclude by 2026. A revision does not automatically require amendments to the legal framework; nonetheless, the Commission has already signalled its intention to reopen the AVMSD and has requested input from EU countries. The paper, dated 6 January 2025 and seen by MLex, is the first draft prepared by Poland, currently holding the Council of the EU's rotating presidency, drawing on bilateral talks with other Member States, and national representatives will debate it on 16 January 2025. At a Brussels conference in December 2024, Anna Herold, head of the Commission's Audiovisual Policy Unit, said the exercise would concentrate on the creators' economy, ensuring a level playing field with other...
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 i QIYI brings a landmark copyright claim against Chinese AI start-up Mini Max. According to MLex, the China-based video-streaming service has filed proceedings in a local court, accusing the domestic artificial intelligence start-up of infringement linked to AI model training and content production. See: i QIYI sues Chinese AI startup Mini Max for copyright infringement in landmark case. MLex has learned. Appeal Tracker: Comptroller- General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd In Comptroller- General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 825, the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal on 29 November 2024. Earlier, the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division) upheld the hearing officer’s appeal from a High Court...
THJ Systems Ltd and another company v Sheridan and another company [2024] EWHC 3195 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on the court’s method for quantifying damages in commercial disputes. It underscores the need for procedural compliance, robust and credible evidence, and a careful separation of distinct heads of claim, providing actionable lessons for practitioners dealing with comparable matters in England and Wales... What was the background? Mr Mitchell ( M) developed a software application named Option NET Explorer ( Software) for options trading. He partnered with Mr Sheridan ( S), forming Option NET LLP (the LLP). Under the LLP’s model, M and his company, THJ Systems Ltd ( THJ), would supply the Software for S’s option trading mentoring business, Sheridan Options Mentoring Corporation ( SOM), to use. Relations deteriorated, prompting THJ to terminate SOM’s licence to use the...
Prismall v Google UK Ltd and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 1516 What are the practical implications of this case? This Court of Appeal ruling does not meaningfully develop the jurisprudence, yet it underlines the formidable obstacles to pursuing a representative claim for misuse of private information. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, which effectively closed the door on representative actions for data protection breaches, claimants turned instead to misuse of private information as the preferred route. The court recognised, however, that such claims are generally inherently ill‑suited to representative procedures because, in practice, individual circumstances determine whether a given claimant enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy; that assessment, in turn, dictates whether the entire cohort can be said to share the ‘same interest’, as strictly required by CPR 19.8. Where a class may comprise hundreds or even...
The Xuhui District People’s Court in Shanghai has recently considered the case, representing one of the earliest examples of a streaming service bringing copyright actions against AI firms. As Shanghai contends with Beijing and Shenzhen for the ‘ AI City’ mantle, Xuhui stands out as a central incubator for the region’s AI sector. Its importance lies in the court’s forthcoming guidance on how intellectual property safeguards apply to AI businesses involved in processing training data. It likewise underscores the tribunal’s task of striking a balance, given the Chinese authorities’ backing for both established online platforms and nascent technologies such as AI. Mini Max was accused of leveraging i QIYI’s protected content to train AI, using i QIYI’s copyrighted materials, as alleged in court proceedings......
As the FCA zeroed in on the duty, which obliges companies, individuals and partnerships to deliver good outcomes for clients and customers, it ran a consultation until the end of October 2024 on streamlining detailed conduct rules and guidance. According to lawyers, the FCA signalled it wanted teams of staff and senior figures inside financial firms to challenge assumptions about the Consumer Duty, introduced in 2023, and to take ownership of how they comply. ' I frequently hear firms call the duty nebulous, and I concur,' said Sara Cody, contentious regulation counsel at Linklaters LLP. ' Working out what “good” actually looks like can be elusive, and the FCA’s position keeps developing. ' You should therefore be prepared to revisit whether your approach could be enhanced,' Cody continued. In her first Mansion House address in the City in November 2024,...
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
