In Morganstone Ltd v Birkemp Ltd [2024] EWHC 933 (TCC), Judge Keyser KC determined that the Adjudicator had taken “an erroneously restrictive view of his jurisdiction” by failing to consider certain cross-claims advanced by the Responding Party as part of its defence to a claim for payment.
In a landmark trademark infringement decision issued on 6th March 2024, the UK Supreme Court upheld a Court of Appeal decision against Amazon for targeting of UK consumers.
In the ever-changing landscape of Qualified One-Way Cost Shifting (“QOCS”), Defenders have found themselves fighting an uphill battle to recover their expenses (costs) if an action is successfully defended. QOCS is designed to avoid personal injury Pursuers who are simply unsuccessful at Proof with the defender’s version of events being preferred, being found liable for the Defenders’ expenses.
For many, it has been a long held wisdom that the application of data protection law applies only to information which is held in recorded form. Those with prior experience of dealing with subject access requests know only too well that any complaints about a colleague or a customer should be made verbally and never in writing. It appeared then to be a natural extension of that reasoning that data protection law did not apply to any disclosures which were made verbally as opposed to in any written form, whether email, direct message or letter.
The so-called ‘criminalisation of healthcare workers’ has become an increasingly contentious issue in recent years, raising important questions about the balance between professional accountability and the protection of medical practitioners. This phenomenon, where healthcare professionals face criminal charges for errors or perceived misconduct in the course of their duties, has significant implications not only for the medical community but wider society.