GLOSSARY

PRISM definition

Published by a LexisNexis Energy expert

What does PRISM mean?

Power Reactor Innovative Small Module: Also known as S-PRISM or SuperPRISM, PRISM is a fast breeding reactor developed by Hitachi GE Nuclear Energy. Hitachi GE Nuclear Energy announced in July 2012 that it had submitted a proposal to the NDA outlining the feasibility of the PRISM reactor to dispose of the UK's current stockpile of plutonium.

View the related practice notes about PRISM

Financial services compliance—Ireland—Q&A guide

Financial services compliance—Ireland—Q&A guide This Practice Note contains a jurisdiction-specific Q&A guide to financial services compliance in Ireland published as part of the Lexology Getting the Deal Through series by Law Business Research (published: August 2021). Authors: Dillon Eustace—Keith Waine; Laura Twomey 1. What national authorities regulate the provision of financial products and services? The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) is the primary authority responsible for the regulation of financial services firms in Ireland. The statutory objectives of the CBI include the maintenance of price and financial stability, the resolution of financial difficulties and the oversight of the regulation of financial services firms and markets while ensuring the interests of consumers of financial products are protected. In addition to being responsible for the authorisation and supervision of financial services firms in Ireland, the CBI also has powers of investigation and enforcement of breaches of financial services law by firms and individuals. The European Central Bank (ECB) is the competent authority responsible for the authorisation and prudential supervision of banks in Ireland, following the introduction of the Single Supervisory Mechanism on 4 November 2014. Banks designated as 'significant' are supervised directly by a 'joint supervisory team' led by the ECB, comprising staff from the ECB and the CBI. Banks designated as 'less significant' are supervised directly by the CBI with oversight from the ECB. 2. What activities does each national financial services

Public law fact-finding and split hearings

Public law fact-finding and split hearings A fact-finding hearing is the first of two parts of a ‘split hearing’. At the first stage, the court makes findings of fact on issues identified by the court and set out in the court order listing the fact finding hearing. This Practice Note is concerned with the public law context. On 22 April 2014, the Public Law Outline 2014 (PLO 2014) for care, supervision and other proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) came into effect as the revised FPR 2010, PD 12A. See Practice Note: Public children—Public Law Outline 2014 for practical guidance on PLO 2014, and the provisions of the Children and Families Act 2014. In relation to an interim order, while the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the ChA 1989, s 31(2) threshold criteria are satisfied, this is a lower test than that at a final hearing. The court should be slow to make any findings about disputed facts at the interim stage. If the threshold criteria are not satisfied at a final hearing, the court should not make an interim order. Even if they are met, the court must also decide whether or not an order is necessary for the child’s welfare. In G (children: fair hearing), Moor J highlighted (at paras [34]–[35]) that ChA 1989, s

Discover our 12 Practice Notes on PRISM

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

View the related q&as about PRISM

US government surveillance in the context of EU data protection law

US government surveillance in the context of EU data protection law In Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems, Case C-311/18 (Schrems II), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield based on the potential interference with data subject rights caused by US government surveillance carried out under Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Executive Order 12333 (EO 12333). In its decision, the CJEU also referred to PRISM and UPSTREAM, two surveillance programs revealed following Edward Snowden’s leaks in 2013. This Q&A, by Richard Lawne, associate in the Privacy, Security and Information team at Fieldfisher, provides a brief overview of the surveillance regimes referred to by the CJEU in its decision. It does not address all of the surveillance activities carried out by the US government or the laws governing law enforcement requests (like the CLOUD Act). Section 702 of FISA The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 to regulate US governmental electronic and physical surveillance of communications for foreign intelligence purposes. It has been amended, strengthened and reformed a number of times, including by the USA Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act and the USA FREEDOM Act. FISA authorises government surveillance through various means: electronic surveillance, physical searches, pen register and trap and trace surveillance and business record searches. All FISA activities are overseen

Can the court make findings against parents within care proceedings if the local authority are not seeking any? Can the court direct that there be a fact-finding hearing if no other party deems it necessary or appropriate?

Can the court make findings against parents within care proceedings if the local authority are not seeking any? Can the court direct that there be a fact-finding hearing if no other party deems it necessary or appropriate? The philosophical underpinning of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) is that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration. The ultimate arbiter of what is in a child’s interests during an application is therefore, with some very limited exceptions, the court. There is therefore a wealth of authority that makes it plain that it is for the court to determine whether certain allegations should be pursued or not, or whether to make findings outside of those sought by the parties. Often such issues arise in the context of parents who have made partial concessions as to threshold, where the local authority seeks permission to withdraw its application for a ChA 1989, Pt IV order without seeking a finding on threshold. It is therefore for the court to determine which findings are necessary. This should be viewed through the prism of welfare and only findings that will promote the child’s welfare should be pursued. There are multiple factors that will be involved in the analysis, but issues regarding delay, stress on the family or strength of evidence will all potentially be in play. See for example A County Council v DP, RS,

See the 2 Q&As about PRISM

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

View the related News about PRISM

Global version of APEC data-flows certification mechanism attracts EU and UK interest

MLex: EU and UK authorities are ‘interested’ in plans for a global version of an Asia-Pacific certification mechanism for cross-border data flows that lets companies show they comply with globally recognised privacy standards, officials said on 23 May 2022.

Loopholes will limit potency of new economic crime law

Law360, London: Loopholes in the new economic crime law could allow the corrupt foreign elites it is designed to target evade the government's attempts to crack down on dirty money in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, lawyers say.

Read the latest 41 News articles on PRISM

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"Although cost was an important factor, our relationship with LexisNexis, their responsiveness, flexibility, and the integration available with other products were key factors."

Irwin Mitchell

Access all documents on PRISM

GET ACCESS NOW

Top