Articles

In Huntley v Siemens Healthcare Limited [2025] EAT 152, the EAT reminds both parties that they must keep in mind the prospects of their claims and defences at all stages of litigation. Grace Nicholls' analysis of the case also highlights that targeted costs applications may result in greater success.

Following his talk on Remedies in Complex Cases at 3PB’s well-attended Employment Law Conference last month Stephen Wyeth reviews the ‘hot off the press’ EAT decision of Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151, the latest appellate decision dealing with how tribunals should evaluate future loss in unfair dismissal cases.

This article analyses how the UK’s export-control, patent secrecy and investment-screening regimes apply to AI models and datasets that generate dual-use or defence-relevant outputs. It argues that legality turns on capability and potential end-use: an AI system may require a licence because of its technical performance or because the exporter knows or suspects its outputs could support WMD programmes.

Having dealt with many fact-finding hearings on behalf of Local Authorities, children through their guardians and parents over the past ten years, Nigel Hawkins shares his checklist of dos and don'ts when conducting Private Law fact-finding hearings.

In the context of rapid technological changes, three years on from M (A Child – Private Law Children Proceedings - Case Management - Intimate Images) [2022] EWHC 986 (Fam), Ayesha Bell-Paris revisits Knowles J's much needed guidance on how the use of intimate images should be managed in private law proceedings.

Amy Beddis and Birketts' Lucia Mills focus on the issues of third-party intervention within financial remedy proceedings - with a practical focus on loans.

Lucia and Amy consider the difficulties that can arise when financial support from parents or grandparents has been given to couples just starting out, or for example where families have gifted or loaned monies to complete renovations or helped out with mortgage repayments.

Rachel Bale provides a recent round up of TOLATA / Schedule 1 cases covering:

• Nilsson and Anor v Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch)
• Savage v Savage [2024] EWCA Civ 49
• TK v LK [2024] EWFC 71
• Dervis v Deniz [2025] EWHC 902 (Ch)
• W v X [2025] EWHC 1696 (Fam)
• Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision: s 423 Insolvency Act 1986) [2025] EWHC 1460 (Fam)

Following the Supreme Court's April judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has now (5 September 2025) shared its updated Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations with the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval. Katherine Anderson considers the legal and practical implications of the For Women Scotland Ltd judgment for schools.

John Friel and Jim Hirschmann revisit Phelps v The London Borough of Hillingdon [2001] 2 A.C. 619; [2000] E.L.R and examine in particular how duty of care and vicarious liability has evolved as far as education professionals and local authorities are concerned.

Robin Pickard reviews Aslam v Transport UK London Bus Ltd (formerly known as Abellio London Ltd) [2025] EAT 113, in which the EAT considers whether a claimant had pleaded a victimisation claim, and analyses the impact of the case on applications for reconsideration and appeals where the Tribunal addresses (or does not address) a claim that is not explicitly pleaded.

Stephen Wyeth analyses CX v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EAT 114 to identify what practitioners might glean from this latest decision on amendment applications and how best to address them.

Sarah Clarke on the case of Mesuria v Eurofins Forensics Services Ltd [2025] EAT 103, and the importance for practitioners tending to preliminary hearings on time limits to correctly identify if they will request strike out under Rule 38, or a preliminary determination under Rule 52, as that will fundamentally alter both how the hearing is prepared for and how it is conducted.