Expert Analysis

• Uber Payout Offers Employer Lessons On Mitigating Bias

  

  Uber Eats' recent payout to a driver over allegations that the company's facial recognition software was discriminatory sheds light on bias in AI, and offers guidance for employers on how to avoid harming employees through the use of such technology, says Rachel Rigg at Fieldfisher.

• Apple Ruling Offers Morsel Of Certainty On Litigation Funding

  

  An English court's recent decision in Gutmann v. Apple, finding that a litigation funder could be paid via a damages award, offers a piece of guidance on the permissibility of such agreement terms amid the ongoing uncertainty around funded group litigation in the U.K., says Mohsin Patel at Factor Risk Management.

• Clarifying Legal Elements To Support A Genocide Claim At ICJ

  

  Reporting on South Africa’s dispute against Israel in the International Court of Justice largely fails to clearly articulate what a case for genocide alleged in the context of war requires — a technical analysis that will evaluate several key factors, from the scale of the devastation to statements by officials, say Solomon Shinerock and Alex Bedrosyan at Lewis Baach.

• Opinion

  Employment Tribunal Fees Risk Reducing Access To Justice

  

  Before the proposed fee regime for employment tribunal claims can take effect, the government needs much more evidence that low-income individuals — arguably the tribunal system's most important users — will not be negatively affected by the fees, says Max Winthrop, employment law committee chair at the Law Society.

• Tribunal Cases Illustrate Balancing Act Of Anti-Bias Protection

  

  Recent employment tribunal discrimination cases show employers the complexities of determining the scope of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, and responding proportionately, particularly when conflicts involve controversial beliefs that can trigger competing employee discrimination claims, say Michael Powner and Sophie Rothwell at Charles Russell.

• EU Ruling Exposes Sovereignty Fissures In Int'l Arbitration

  

  The European Court of Justice's recent ruling that the U.K. had breached EU law by allowing an arbitral award to proceed underscores the diminished influence of EU jurisprudence in the U.K., hinting at the EU courts' increasingly nominal sway in international arbitration within jurisdictions that prize legal autonomy, says Josep Galvez at 4-5 Gray’s Inn.

• UK Arbitration Ruling Offers Tips On Quelling Bias Concerns

  

  An English court's recent decision in H1 v. W to remove an arbitrator because of impartiality concerns offers several lessons on mitigating bias, including striking a balance between arbitration experience and knowledge of a particular industry, and highlights the importance of careful arbitrator appointment, says Paul-Raphael Shehadeh at Duane Morris.

• UK Amazon Ruling Spotlights TM Rights In International Sales

  

  Highlighting the conflict between the territorial nature of trademark rights and the borderless nature of the internet, the U.K. Supreme Court's recent decision — that Amazon's U.S. website could infringe EU and U.K. rights by targeting local buyers — offers guidance on navigating trademark rights in relation to online sales, say Emmy Hunt, Mark Kramer and Jordan Mitchell at Potter Clarkson.

• UK Courts Continue To Struggle With Crypto-Asset Cases

  

  Although the common law has proved capable of applying established principles to crypto-assets, recent cases highlight persistent challenges in identifying defendants, locating assets and determining jurisdiction, suggesting that any meaningful development will likely come from legislative or regulatory change, say Emily Saunderson and Sam Mitchell at Quadrant Chambers.

• Why Computer Evidence Is Not Always Reliable In Court

  

  Recent challenges to the admissibility of encrypted communication from the messaging tool EncroChat highlight the flawed presumption in the U.K. common law framework that computer evidence is always accurate, and why a nuanced assessment of such evidence is needed, say Sam De Silva and Josie Welland at CMS Legal.

• Lessons On Using 3rd-Party Disclosure Orders In Fraud Cases

  

  The expansion of the gateway for service out of jurisdiction regarding third-party information orders has proven to be an effective tool against fraud since it was introduced in 2022, and recent case law offers practical tips on what applicants should be aware of when submitting such orders, says Rosie Wild at Cooke Young.

• 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.