+44 207 488 9947
Legal Updates 2024
Please browse our current UK legal updates on a range of legal topics. To view a particular topic, click on the relevant link below:
Daniella Corbin
Recently, the Court of Appeal judgment in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council (Churchill) decided a pivotal case, altering the landscape of Alternative Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’) in England and Wales. The case clarified the legal boundaries of court-ordered ADR, confirming that courts can mandate participation in ADR without infringing on the right to a fair trial. This judgment has since led to important changes in the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’), which came into force on 01 October 2024, embedding ADR as a key aspect of civil justice.
The Court’s Ruling in Churchill
In Churchill, the Court of Appeal revisited the principles established in Halsey and ultimately overturned its findings. The court held that ordering parties to participate in ADR, such as mediation, does not breach the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. The judgment clarified that as long as the order does not impair the parties right to proceed to a full judicial hearing, if necessary, ADR can be lawfully mandated. Importantly, the court stated that requiring parties to attempt ADR aligns with the overarching goals of civil justice—achieving fair, timely, and cost-effective resolutions. The judgment in Churchill therefore gives courts the power to compel ADR in appropriate cases, provided the order is proportionate and does not infringe on the essence of the parties’ rights.
Implications of the Judgment
Following the decision, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee amended the CPR to reflect the court's clarified position on ADR. The CPR amendments now allow courts to order ADR or stay proceedings pending ADR participation, and courts may impose cost sanctions on parties who refuse to comply. This judgment and the resulting rule changes are expected to cultivate a shift towards the increased use of ADR, with the aim of promoting faster, more efficient dispute resolution and reducing the burden on the courts.
Changes to the CPR from 1 October 2024
The recent significant changes to the CPR, following the Court of Appeal judgment in Churchill, mark a pivotal shift in the role of ADR within the civil justice system, embedding ADR as a core component of civil procedure. In particular, the CPR amendments have brought about the alignment of the rules with the Churchill decision, enhancing the court's ability to promote and, where appropriate, order ADR in the pursuit of just and proportionate case management. The reforms have broad implications for legal practitioners, litigants, and the judiciary, signifying a shift towards ADR.
On 2nd July 2024, a High court judge issued a mixed ruling in an ongoing patent infringementcase between competing developers of Covid-19 vaccines Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech. Thepharmaceutical giant Pfizer along with its partner manufacturer BioNTech have been embroiledin conflict with vaccine producer Moderna, concerning the use of messenger RNA (‘mRNA’)technology in Covid-19 vaccines.
Daniella Corbin
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has recently re-released its guidance on examining patent applications concerning Artificial Intelligence (AI) inventions. The guidance followed the ruling of the High Court trademark case of Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, November 2023. In the Emotional Perception AI case, a UKIPO hearing officer refused a patent application for an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) invention. The hearing officer argued that the ANN invention was a “program for a computer” and therefore excluded under the Patents Act. The High Court disagreed with this decision, confirming that an ANN is patentable and falls outside of that exclusion.
Daniella Corbin
Emotional Perception Case
Emotional Perception AI invented a system that claimed tomake music and media recommendations to its users in anew and improved way. This was said to be possible basedon how the users were categorised by ANNs that weretrained. The claim itself considered two aspects of ANNusage: (i) the process by which ANN is trained, and (ii) theprocess of using the trained ANN.The patent application for this invention was rejected by ahearing officer of the UKIPO, who concluded that EmotionalPerception’s claimed invention was not patentable. Theofficer determined that the system created by EmotionalPerception, as a whole, was a computer program, andadditionally, its ability to provide similar filerecommendations was not “technical in nature” andbelieved it to be excluded from patentability under thePatents Act.
Legal Update/Article: Software Licensing : IBM vs LZLABS case reporting by Daniella Corbin, May 2024
In recent news, Zurich-based startup company, LZLabs is being sued for the second time by IBM, not for patent infringement like the previous 2022 Texas case between the two, but rather, for “unlawful” use of IBM's “proprietary technology.”
In a statement, IBM stated that “ the case has nothing to do with restricting competition but protecting itself against the unlawful exploitation of technology that required billions of dollars of investment.” For that reason IBM wants the court to order LZLabs to stop selling its tech and forbid them and any subsidiaries from making further use of the IBM mainframe software.
Daniella Corbin
- Practice Area: AI & Data Science
15-12-2024 - Case Law: Churchill Case
30-11-2024 - Testimonial : Academic Misconduct
23-11-2024 - Testimonial - MPharm Student
22-09-2024 - MODERNA V. PFIZER/BIONTECH
28-08-2024 - Patents - Artificial Intelligence
05-07-2024 - Case Study : OSCE Retake
26-06-2024 - IBM vs LZLABS report by D Corbin
20-05-2024 - Case Study : Biomedical Science
14-03-2024 - Case study : MSc Nursing Student
22-02-2024 - Case Study : Accused of Plagiarism
09-11-2023 - Testimonial : MBBS Resit Failure
05-11-2023 - Case Study : MBBS Professionalism
01-11-2023 - Pre-packed Food Labelling Deadline
26-10-2023 - Case Study : MBBS withdrawal
14-10-2023
