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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
At the start of the first of four days of closing arguments at the High Court in London, Lindsay Lane, acting for Getty, stated that her team would not continue with allegations of direct copyright infringement, and would instead focus on other aspects of the case: trade mark violation, secondary copyright infringement, and licensing matters. The broad and technically intricate case had initially centred on an allegation by Getty, a global image library and licensor, that UK-based Stability AI unlawfully scraped and utilised more than 12 million copyrighted images from Getty’s database to train its Stable Diffusion model......
In this issue: New technologies Internet Data protection Media Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Lex Talk®International Trade: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information New technologies Misuse of AI in court and the consequences ( Ayinde v Haringey & Al- Haroun v Qatar National Bank) In Ayinde v Haringey London Borough Council; Al- Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC [2025] EWHC 1383 ( Admin), the Divisional Court considered the fallout from improper deployment of AI in litigation. Triggered by two references concerning proven or suspected use of generative AI by lawyers, the court relied on its inherent powers to police duties owed to the court (the Hamid jurisdiction). The judgment offers essential direction to practitioners on their obligations when using AI, both to the court and to...
UK data reform act rollout plans UK businesses should anticipate the country’s data reform act being delivered through secondary legislation over the next six to nine months, with the first changes likely by autumn 2025 and the final measures pencilled in for winter 2025 under the UK privacy watchdog’s plans. The data reform bill, which entered into law on 19 June 2025, brings a range of updates to the UK data protection framework. However, the rollout will be staged, as various elements hinge on secondary legislation not yet put before lawmakers, or on additional materials still to be released by the data protection regulator. The Information Commissioner’s Office ( ICO) has signalled intentions to prepare guidance and start implementing some aspects, though firm dates are yet to be confirmed. Overall, the timetable indicates a lead-in period of six to nine months from the law’s...
For the first time, the BBC has signalled potential legal action against a generative AI firm over alleged copyright breaches. The broadcaster has written to Perplexity, instructing it to cease using BBC material and to erase any BBC data it holds. BBC News reports that the corporation is also seeking compensation for content it claims has already been used. A letter to Aravind Srinivas, CEO and co-founder of Perplexity AI, further alleges that Perplexity’s output infringes the BBC’s copyright and breaches the corporation’s terms of use, according to BBC News reporting......
Regulating how minors access and use online services, including those run by platforms, has swiftly risen to the top of the agenda for regulators across the EU, the UK and globally in recent policy discussions and enforcement priorities. On 13 May 2025, the European Commission issued draft guidelines on safeguarding children online under the EU Digital Services Act ( EU DSA). Their purpose is to help platforms shield minors from illegal material while ensuring their security and privacy, in line with the EU DSA. The guidelines, directed at all online platforms that can be reached by minors, describe procedures for evaluating risks to young users and set out the measures that providers of online platform services should adopt to mitigate those risks and meet the requirements of Article 28 of the EU DSA. Which platforms are accessible to minors? The guidelines state that...
Across the EU, a copyright licensing marketplace for training artificial intelligence systems remains nascent, largely because AI developers shy away from entering licensing talks, a summary of feedback from European governments and CMOs indicates. The document, seen by MLex, consolidates replies from EU countries—many informed by national collective management organisations—to a policy questionnaire circulated in January. CMOs administer copyright and related rights for multiple rights holders, notably in creative sectors such as the music industry. Even so, the summary records that licensing of protected works by CMOs for AI training is uncommon in the EU, as most respondents report developers’ unwillingness to engage in negotiations... AI licensing market The survey highlights two priority obstacles: Transparency, which rights holders regard as essential to exercise their rights and negotiate remuneration Workable opt-out mechanisms for the EU Copyright Directive’s text and data mining...
In this issue: New technologies Information technology Internet Data protection Media Advertising marketing and sponsorship 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 Commission pushes on with AI models Code of Practice despite possible law delay MLex: The European Commission is moving forward to complete a Code of Practice for general-purpose AI ( GPAI) model developers, envisioned as a central compliance tool for companies such as Open AI, Anthropic and Microsoft, and set for use from August 2025, even as formal discussions about pausing the underpinning EU AI Act continue. The Code, the GPAI guidelines, a template for disclosing training datasets, and related guidance are due by the first week of July 2025. Major AI firms are being...
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...
GPAI model developers should still get a final draft of the EU Code of Practice from the Commission in July 2025, despite a potential ‘stop the clock’ on the EU AI Act, MLex has learned Bilateral talks are continuing, and the draft is foreseen for the first week of July. MLex earlier reported that the Commission was weighing a hold on the EU AI Act after a critical letter from the Trump administration in the US and a visit to Washington by the Commission’s Executive Vice- President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, Henna Virkkunen. The matter was recently put on the agenda of a meeting of EU digital ministers, where Virkkunen formally indicated that parts of the EU AI Act could be paused if technical standards and administrative guidance are not ready when the rules take effect. The EU AI Act phases in over...
The European Commission has pencilled in 10 December 2025 as the provisional date for the publication of a package of digital policy initiatives, including a so-called omnibus intended to propose amendments to legislation, according to an internal document seen by MLex. The omnibus is informed by a review of the EU digital laws, which EU officials have suggested could affect legislation relating to data, cybersecurity, and AI. In this context,......
In this issue: Data protection New technologies Internet Telecommunications Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Data protection DUA Bill passes through Parliament and heads for royal assent Parliament cleared the Data ( Use and Access) Bill ( DUA Bill) on 11 June 2025. First tabled in October 2024, this marks the end of a lengthy passage characterised by nine rounds of legislative 'ping pong' between the Lords and the Commons. A focal point was the disputed use of copyright works when training AI systems. In the final debate on 11 June 2025, the House of Lords chose not to press its amendment again, which would have compelled further government legislation addressing copyright infringement and AI transparency. Instead, peers agreed to a Commons...
AI chatbots are reshaping how companies manage customer enquiries and grievances, delivering speed and round-the-clock access that many conventional routes cannot rival. Yet the European Commission’s recent Digital Fairness Act Fitness Check has exposed a shortfall: EU consumers currently do not enjoy a cross-sector right to insist on human interaction when dealing with AI chatbots in business-to-consumer contexts. It remains uncertain whether, and in what way, the Commission intends to tackle this. The forthcoming EU Digital Fairness Act might address it, but the Commission’s draft is not expected until the third quarter of 2026. This note sets out core consumer protection issues for businesses rolling out AI chatbots in the EU market. AI Chatbots cannot be the only contact channel Under EU rules—most notably Directive 2011/83/ EU, the EU Consumer Rights Directive, and Council Directive 2000/31/ EC, the e Commerce...
Verbraucherzentrale Hamburg E. V. v Bonprix Handelsgesellschaft Mbh, Case C-100/24, ECLI: EU: C:2025:352 What are the practical implications of this case? While the need for transparent consumer promotion terms is well established, this decision offers a noteworthy take on what counts as a ‘promotional offer’ under the EU E‑ Commerce Directive. The court’s approach appears to draw within the scope of the ‘information provision’ rules those statements about payment and purchasing methods that might not ordinarily be viewed as ‘promotional offers’—as opposed to clearer promotions like discounts—despite the Directive referencing ‘promotional offers, such as discounts, premiums and gifts’. In the UK, the Electronic Commerce ( EC Directive) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2013 remain in force, with post‑ Brexit amendments, and set out comparable obligations regarding ‘promotional offers’ and required disclosures. Given the surge of ‘buy now pay later’ and related arrangements in the UK, it is still...
By 242 votes to 116, the House of Lords once more pressed Parliament to add the amendment to the DUA Bill, following interventions from numerous peers who argued that the Labour government’s decision to withhold the clause weakened copyright safeguards to placate Silicon Valley. It marked the fourth occasion on which peers endorsed Beeban Kidron’s transparency proposals. Kidron said it was remarkable that the government’s fixed, unyielding stance deems enforcing laws to stop the theft of UK citizens’ property to be unfair to the very industry indeed openly committing the theft......
In this issue: New technologies Internet Data protection 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 Useful information New technologies CAP clarifies AI disclosure requirements in UK advertising regulation The Committee of Advertising Practice ( CAP) has set out the present UK position on disclosing AI in advertising. Although acknowledging the EU AI Act will begin applying from August 2024, CAP confirms there is no universal obligation in the UK to declare AI use in adverts. The guidance underscores that existing CAP Code and Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice rules cover AI-generated material, and points to the 2023 industry principles from the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Institute of...
The AI Act follows a staggered timeline for when its different chapters take legal effect, although the enforcement rules and sanction regime will only apply with the bulk of the provisions starting 2 August 2026 The AI Act is being phased in, with different chapters activating at separate times, while the enforcement mechanisms and penalties start alongside most provisions on 2 August 2026. The early roll-out has been demanding, with the Commission juggling the creation of a new AI Office, the publication of administrative guidance, and the orchestration of a code of practice for general-purpose AI models. That code has become especially divisive, touching on delicate matters such as copyright safeguards in developing generative AI and approaches to societal risks, which ultimately led to the legal deadline being missed. It has also turned into a source of friction with the US...
In February 2025, the European Commission issued two guideline suites clarifying core aspects of Regulation ( EU) 2024/1689, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act ( EU AI Act)— Guidelines on the definition of an AI system and Guidelines on prohibited AI practices. These texts aim to steer stakeholders through the tranche of EU AI Act duties that took effect on 2 February 2025, in particular the definitions section of the EU AI Act, requirements on AI literacy, and bans on certain AI practices. Spanning well over one hundred pages in length, the Guidelines deliver highly detailed direction on interpreting and applying each of the eight prohibited AI practices listed in Article 5 of Regulation ( EU) 2024/1689. As a reminder, Article 5 sets out practices that are forbidden in relation to AI systems. The Guidelines also closely examine how high-risk AI systems...
In this issue: Internet Data protection Advertising, marketing and sponsorship Lex Talk®TMT: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Internet Commission launches EU DSA action against adult sites over child safety The European Commission has started formal proceedings against Pornhub, Stripchat, XNXX and XVideos under the EU Digital Services Act for suspected failures in safeguarding minors. It plans priority probes, spanning evidence collection, interviews and inspections, centred on alleged breaches of obligations around age-checking tools and risk assessment processes. Stripchat is to be de-designated as a Very Large Online Platform, with oversight moving to the Cyprus Radiotelevision Authority within four months. In parallel, Member States, acting via the European Board for Digital Services, are beginning parallel coordinated action targeting smaller pornographic services to secure uniform enforcement of the EU DSA across the European Union. See: LNB News 27/05/2025 8......
Facts The defendant in the proceedings, Ms Lawrence, entered into a loan agreement with a lender, for whom HNW, the claimant in the matter, acted as the security agent for the lender. The purpose of the loan agreement was to help finance Ms Lawrence’s development of a property. That property was also secured separately by a legal mortgage, operating as continuing security to the lender under the loan terms. Although HNW was not itself a party to the loan agreement, the loan agreement nonetheless contained an express provision said to grant HNW certain third party rights to enforce its terms; namely, that, even though HNW Lending Ltd was not a party to this Loan Agreement, HNW Lending Ltd could take the benefit of and specifically enforce each and every express term of the Loan Agreement, together with any term implied under it pursuant to the...
EUIPO Executive Director João Negrão informed the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs that it is sensible to look at extending the EUIPO’s current mediation centre to cover copyright disputes, alongside its alternative dispute resolution services for parties embroiled in trade mark and design conflicts. ‘ I believe that would serve everyone’s interests,’ Negrão stated. He observed that the office would have to broaden the regulatory basis for the centre, yet said he is ‘more than willing’ to examine the idea. Negrão was appearing before......
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
