Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) use in business has proliferated in recent years; risks arising from this therefore must be managed. Whilst the use of AI can drive significant efficiency gains for most businesses, the characteristics of machine learning mean that there is the potential for data protection and discrimination claims to arise (amongst others). We explore some of the potential litigation risks in the UK arising and how these risks can be managed.

With the rise of litigation funding of group actions, there has been an increasing use of representative actions by Claimants in recent years.

A recent decision in the Birmingham County Court has added to the body of case law growing around the test for listing multiple claimants on the same claim form. In Angel and others v Black Horse Limited, unreported, 8 September 2023, County Court at Birmingham, a case involving over 5,000 claimants bringing claims against 8 finance companies, the claimants had issued proceedings using 8 claim forms (one against each defendant). HHJ Worster held that in this case it was impermissible under CPR 7.3 to use a single claim form for all the claims against the same defendant. The judge therefore ordered the claimants to sever their claims from the common claim forms. HHJ Worster relied heavily on the guidance given by the High Court in Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 1475 (KB) on the CPR 7.3 “convenience test”, which concerns whether multiple claimants may use a single claim form. These cases emphasise the need for a sufficient commonality of significant issues between the claims brought on the same claim form that will then be useful in determining those issues within one set of proceedings.

Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) are widely present in soil and groundwater, and the negative human health consequences of this are starting to be understood. There are important implications for anyone with interests in real estate in the UK. This Insight analyses the risks of PFAS in the UK under UK law. 

The High Court has ordered that ClientEarth pay Shell’s costs in connection with all aspects of ClientEarth’s unsuccessful application for permission to continue a derivative claim against Shell and its directors. This is a departure from the default position in derivative proceedings. Usually, the company will not be awarded any costs incurred in making submissions in opposition to, or attending any hearing of, a shareholder’s application at the permission stage. This judgment therefore raises the stakes for activist shareholders who are considering bringing a derivative claim.