Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are known to ‘hallucinate’, making up false information or confabulating to fill gaps in their knowledge. But who is responsible in law for any libel or harm caused as a result? In this week’s NLJ, Chloe Flascher, associate at Withers, addresses this fascinating conundrum.
In this week’s NLJ, Richard Scorer, head of abuse law & public inquiries at Slater and Gordon, highlights the necessity of ‘proper forensic scrutiny’ during public inquiries.
A recent employment appeal concerning a teacher dismissed for expressing gender-critical views on Facebook is a significant development in employment law because the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) focused on the ‘reason why’ question. In this week’s NLJ, Charles Pigott, professional support lawyer, Mills & Reeve, explains why the EAT’s approach ‘marks a significant development’ for discrimination claims, breaking new ground.
'Litigants who lose sometimes blame their lawyer' is a truth widely acknowledged in the legal sector. Writing in this week’s NLJ, Michael Bundock, barrister, dispute resolution, LexisNexis, looks specifically at the circumstances in which a negligence claim may be struck out as an abuse of process because it involves a collateral attack on the earlier judgment.
A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on gender-critical beliefs has brought human rights to the fore: Charles Pigott analyses a significant development for discrimination claims
What next when a disgruntled litigant decides to sue their lawyer for negligence after losing a case? Michael Bundock examines when such a claim may be struck out as an abuse
Billions are spent on counterfeit goods in the EU & UK each year: Matti Lindberg & My Mattsson set out some top tips for brand owners to protect their rights online & on the ground
Artificial intelligence tools are not (yet) above creating false information: who could be liable for the serious harm suffered as a result of publishing that information? Chloe Flascher examines a thorny legal issue
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?