Expert Analysis

• Bias Ruling Offers Guidance On Disqualifying Arbitrators

  

  An English court's recent decision in H1 v. W, removing an arbitrator due to bias concerns, reaffirms practical considerations when assessing an arbitrator's impartiality, and highlights how ill-chosen language by an arbitrator can clear the high bar for disqualification, say Andrew Connelly and Ian Meredith at K&L Gates.

• Employer Lessons From Ruling On Prof's Anti-Zionist Views

  

  In Miller v. University of Bristol, an employment tribunal recently ruled that a professor's anti-Zionist beliefs were protected by the Equality Act 2010, highlighting for employers why it’s important to carefully consider disciplinary actions related to an employee's political expressions, says Hina Belitz at Excello Law.

• Design Rights Can Build IP Protection, EU Lego Ruling Shows

  

  The EU General Court's recent ruling in Delta Sport v. EU Intellectual Property Office — that Lego's registered community design for a building block was valid — helps clarify when technically dictated designs can enjoy IP protection, and demonstrates how companies can strategically use design rights to protect and enhance their market position, says Christoph Moeller at Mewburn Ellis.

• ECJ Ruling Clarifies Lawyer Independence Questions

  

  The European Court of Justice's recent ruling in Bonnanwalt v. EU Intellectual Property Office, finding that a law firm had maintained independence despite being owned by its client, serves as a pivotal reference point to understanding the contours of legal representation before EU courts, say James Tumbridge and Benedict Sharrock-Harris at Venner Shipley.

• Unpacking The Law Commission's Digital Assets Consultation

  

  The Law Commission recently published a consultation on recognizing a third personal property category to accommodate the development of digital assets, highlighting difficulties with current models of property rights and the potential consequences of considering digital assets as personal property, say Andrew Tsang and Tom Bacon at BCLP.

• 1st Appellate Ruling On Digital Terms Sets Tone For Disputes

  

  The Court of Appeal's recent ruling in Parker-Grennan v. Camelot, the first appellate decision to consider how online terms and conditions are publicized, provides, in its tone and verdict on incorporation, an invaluable guide for how to approach similar disputes in the digital space, says Eddy Eccles at Covington.

• Insurance Policy Takeaways From UK Lockdown Loss Ruling

  

  An English court's recent decision in Unipolsai v. Covea, determining that insurers' losses from COVID-19 lockdowns were covered by reinsurance, highlights key issues on insurance policy wordings, including how to define a "catastrophe" in the context of the pandemic, says Daniel Healy at Brown Rudnick.

• How Employers Should Respond To Flexible Work Requests

  

  U.K. employees will soon have the right to request flexible working arrangements from the first day of employment, including for religious observances, and refusing them without objective justification could expose employers to indirect discrimination claims and hurt companies’ diversity and inclusion efforts, says Jim Moore at Hamilton Nash.

• What COVID Payout Ruling Means For Lockdown Loss Claims

  

  While the High Court's recent COVID-19 payout decision in Gatwick v. Liberty Mutual, holding that pandemic-related regulations trigger prevention of access clauses, will likely lead to insurers accepting more business interruption claims, there are still evidentiary challenges and issues regarding policy limits and furlough, say Josianne El Antoury and Greg Lascelles at Covington.

• Spartan Arbitration Tactics Against Well-Funded Opponents

  

  Like the ancient Spartans who held off a numerically superior Persian army at the Battle of Thermopylae, trial attorneys and clients faced with arbitration against an opponent with a bigger war chest can take a strategic approach to create a pass to victory, say Kostas Katsiris and Benjamin Argyle at Venable.

• Opinion

  PACCAR Should Be 1st Step To Regulating Litigation Funders

  

  Rather than reversing the U.K. Supreme Court's well-reasoned judgment in PACCAR v. Competition Appeal Tribunal, imposing a regulatory regime on litigation funders in parity with that of lawyers, legislators should build upon it to create a more transparent, competitive and fairer funding industry, says Rosa Curling at Foxglove.

• Patent Plausibility Uncertainty Persists, EPO Petition Shows

  

  While a recent petition for review at the European Patent Office — maintaining that the Board of Appeal misapplied the Enlarged Board of Appeal's order on whether a patent is "plausible" — highlights the continued uncertainty surrounding the plausibility concept, the outcome could provide useful guidance on the interpretation of orders, say lawyers at Finnegan.

• In Int'l Arbitration Agreements, Be Clear About Governing Law

  

  A trilogy of recent cases in the English High Court and Court of Appeal highlight the importance of parties agreeing to explicit choice of law language at the outset of an arbitration agreement in order to avoid costly legal skirmishes down the road, say lawyers at Faegre Drinker.

• Risks The Judiciary Needs To Be Aware Of When Using AI

  

  Recently published judiciary service guidance aims to temper reliance on AI by court staff in their work, and with ever-increasing and evolving technology, such tools should be used for supplementary assistance rather than as a replacement for already existing judicial research tools, says Philip Sewell at Shepherd & Wedderburn.

• Post Office Scandal Stresses Key Directors Duties Lessons

  

  The Post Office scandal, involving hundreds of wrongful convictions of subpostmasters based on an IT failure, offers lessons for company directors on the magnitude of the impact that a failure to fulfill their duties can have on employees and the company, says Simon Goldberg at Simons Muirhead.