MLex: The UK's trust in artificial intelligence (AI) is wavering, with the government in no rush to regulate and fears of potential catastrophic AI uses to the fore. But the country's core regulators themselves are shining a light with their own use of AI, with ventures that could help improve trust as they start to tackle the everyday harms people are encountering, such as fraud and privacy risks. Their ability to ease public concerns is limited, however; it will need a more concerted government approach.

MLex: The role of UK anti-corruption champion is 20 years old this year, but anniversary celebrations would be out of place: No one has been in post for more than two years, and the new Labour government has been silent on the matter after almost two months at the helm. The government-appointed role has remained empty since June 2022, when John Penrose stepped down after more than four years in the post, as a protest at former prime minister Boris Johnson's rule-breaking during the coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown.

MLex: Recent events have revealed weaknesses in cyber security across critical services in the UK, just as a new government took power. The existing cyber regulation has never been fully enforced, and is so unclear that organisations are not sure whether they are even in its scope. Where the previous government delayed, the new administration is bringing in new legislation. Will the incidents and the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill lead to a cultural as well as regulatory shift akin to that of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation that could see cyber issues taken (and enforced) much more seriously?

MLex: The EU’s draft data-sharing law is primarily concerned with non-personal industrial data. But attempts to fully exclude personal data from some provisions of the EU Data Act will force policymakers starting end-game talks on 29 March 2023, on the final shape of the law to wrestle with the practical distinction between personal and non-personal data. Failure to create clear rules could leave companies wondering which to apply.

MLex: The EU Data Act is the latest addition to a patchwork of tech regulations that require companies to negotiate overlaps and potential contradictions to comply. Business groups argue that in the EU’s zeal to boost to European companies by hobbling US tech giants, potentially adverse consequences have not been thought through. They worry that the slew of regulation from the EU Data Act to the EU Digital Markets Act (EU DMA), EU Digital Services Act (EU DSA) and EU Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act), is adding layers of complexity for companies trying to avoid hefty EU fines.

MLex: Nick Ephgrave, the new boss of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), has hit the ground running early on in his tenure as the UK's top anti-fraud chief. But the former policeman may face tough obstacles ahead as he tries to turn the misfiring SFO's fortunes around.

MLex: Tom Hayes, the former UBS trader jailed in the UK for rate rigging, has told MLex that however his long-running fight to overturn his 2015 conviction ends, he has won the 'moral argument'.

MLex: UK payment providers entered a new regime on 7 October 2024 with an obligation to pay back victims of online payment fraud. It looks great for consumers, but what are banks and payments companies really on the hook for? While their regulator amended the maximum value for refunds to £85,000 just weeks ago, a quirk of the rules means a victim of a bigger fraud could win a refund of close to £1m. Another question is just how ready for the new regime payments providers are.

MLex: A recent update to the EU's product liability rules is giving tech companies sleepless nights over whether they could be held liable for data losses caused by cyberattacks.

The Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court,  Mr Justice Henshaw, gave a speech to the Manchester Business and Property Courts Forum dealing with commercial injunctions and associated jurisdictional issues. The speech highlights the importance of establishing jurisdiction to grant an injunction with a specific focus on freezing injunctions, including the scope of assets covered by these injunctions, the likely costs orders that the court will make and the ability to set aside the injunction. The speech also considers proprietary freezing injunctions, search and imaging orders, mandatory injunctions and anti-suit injunctions.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to set aside part of an order granting permission to enforce an arbitral award in the English courts. The application was granted in part and the High Court refused enforcement of one of the declarations made in a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration award. In his judgment, Mr Justice Foxton helpfully set out the criteria employed by the court when exercising its discretion to grant an order under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) to enforce an award in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court. The court held that it always has discretion whether or not to grant such relief. When the terms of an award are unclear, without utility or would adversely impact third parties (inter alia), the court can decline to grant the order, either in whole or in part. Foxton J also found that the application was not barred due to the applicant’s decision not to challenge the award for ‘serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award’ under AA 1996, s 68. Written by Robert Price, partner at Latham & Watkins.

Arbitration analysis: In proceedings on an arbitration claim under CPR 62, to bring additional claims under CPR 20 against two third parties, Mrs Justice Cockerill held that the court had no jurisdiction to permit the additional claims. Her reasoning was that, despite having to defend a claim on its cross-undertaking in damages, the claimant was not to be regarded as a ‘defendant’ to proceedings and therefore could not use CPR 20. The decision analyses when a party is to be regarded as ‘claimant’ or ‘defendant’ in different procedural situations. The judge also considered, without deciding, whether it was at all possible to commence CPR 20 proceedings in respect of an arbitration claim. She held that in any event Russia, not England, was the proper forum for the parties’ dispute. In so holding, the judge considered whether and when the risk of parallel proceedings and irreconcilable decisions was a ‘trump card’ in determining the proper forum for a dispute. Written by Christopher Boyne, partner at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, and Georgina Petrova, barrister at Brick Court Chambers.