Law360: On 3 March 2024, the US Supreme Court held oral argument in Devas Multimedia Private Ltd v Antrix Corp Ltd. The court signaled an intent to reverse the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s holding that personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) ‘requires satisfaction of the traditional minimum contacts standard’, a principle neither party in the case, nor the US government, defended. However, the court expressed little interest in addressing the broader constitutional questions that the petitioners urged the court to decide in the context of this case: whether foreign states(which the FSIA defines to include both a foreign state itself as well as agencies or instrumentalities of the foreign state) are ‘persons’ and therefore entitled to minimum contacts under the due process clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. As a result, this and a number of other important issues implicated by this case may only be addressed on remand.

Law360: The US Supreme Court declined 2 March 2026 to take up a petition asking it to resolve whether an arbitration conducted by a three-member tribunal was fundamentally fair if one arbitrator 'functionally abandoned his post' during a hearing.

Law360: The US Supreme Court on 8 January 2024 opted not to consider whether an arbitration clause that tasks arbitrators with determining their own jurisdiction can be negated by a carve-out, leaving in place a Ninth Circuit decision denying arbitration in a regulatory dispute over a Saipan casino.

Law360: The US Supreme Court on 2 March 2026 declined an appeal from a computer scientist who was denied a copyright in artwork created by an artificial intelligence (AI) system, leaving in place a D.C. Circuit ruling that sided with the US Copyright Office's position that only human-created works can be registered.

Law360: The decision by Britain's highest court to block the extradition of a British trader has rewritten decades of precedent, although lawyers are divided on whether the findings will weaken the long reach of US law or simply refocus it.

A defence used in defamation claims that a defamatory statement is 'substantially' true — the 'sting' of the allegation must be proven, and minor factual errors will not necessarily deprive the defendant of the defence but to be successful, the statement’s factual content must be proven true as well as the interpretation which may be understood of it, and any supporting innuendo.

This Practice Note examines what is meant by justification, sometimes referred to as the ‘justification defence’, in the context of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). It considers what might be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It looks at proportionality in indirect discrimination (EqA 2010, s 19(2)(d)) including where the aim is to prevent discrimination on the basis of other protected characteristics. It considers a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) and looks at issues relating to direct and indirect age discrimination (EqA 2010, s 13(2)) and the Heyday case. It doing so it examines objective justification, defence (no discrimination), the burden of proof, the approach a tribunal should take and the situation where discrimination rights clash. This Practice Note contains references to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of Justice are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law—Assimilated case law. Domestic laws that have been made to implement UK obligations under EU law, such as the obligation

Corporate Crime analysis: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued the first Commissioner’s Opinion in relation to UK regulation of the processing of personal data which takes place whenever law enforcement organisations deploy live facial recognition technology (LFR) in public spaces. Julian Hayes, partner, and Andrew Watson, legal assistant at BCL Solicitors LLP, discuss the implications of the Opinion, and emphasise the importance of establishing ‘a clear and sufficient legal framework for the use of LFR in the UK’ sooner rather than later.

NOTE—appeals lodged before the Court of Appeal in Cases CA-2021-003329; CA-2021-003328 and CA-2021-003339 ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 19 October 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline CAT judgment in relation to two applications for a a collective proceedings order by Mr Justin Gutmann who sought permission to act the class representative to bring opt-out collective proceedings under section 47(B) of the Competition Act 1998. Latest development On 19 October 2021, the CAT issued its judgment in which the CAT: (i) dismissed the summary judgment/strike out applications advanced by First MTR South Western Trains Limited and South Eastern Railway Limited; (ii) authorised Mr Gutmann’s application to act as the class representative in both proceedings; and (iii) found that the claims raised common issues and are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings. Parties Applicant:• Mr Justin GutmannRespondents:•

ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 27 September 2021; it is no longer maintained. NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Appeal See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CAT judgment in relation to (i) a collective proceedings order by Mr Le Patourel, who sought permission to act the class representative to bring opt-in collective proceedings under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998, and (ii) a cross-application by BT to strike out the CPO application. Latest development On 27 September 2021, the CAT issued its judgment in which the CAT held that: (i) the Proposed Class Representative’s application for a CPO should succeed; and (ii) BT’s cross-application to strike out and/or summarily dismiss the claim must fail. Parties Applicant:• Mr Justin Le Patourel (the Proposal Class Representative; PCR): the PRC acts in respect of approximately 2.3m BT customersRespondent:• BT Group Plc and British Telecommunications Plc (together, BT) Background Ofcom’s investigation On 28 February 2017, Ofcom set out proposals to address

IP analysis: When faced with a one-sided, unopposed, application for summary judgment relating to declaratory relief, what approach should the court take in deciding whether to grant such relief? This was the dilemma faced by Mr Justice Mann in a case brought by the Juul Labs, Inc group of companies. The court accepted the Jull Group’s right to judgment in default, but the declaratory relief sought related to trade mark infringement, and would affect not just the absent defendant, but other unrepresented third parties. In deciding against granting the declarations sought, Mann J spelled out clearly why (at least in this case) such relief was inappropriate. While fully justified in so holding, this case nevertheless highlights the problems faced by brand owners in policing the use of their own marks—particularly where the possible defence is that the mark is being used to identify the proprietor’s goods, with which the third party’s products are compatible. Written by Paul A Harris, senior partner (IP Litigation), at Venner Shipley LLP.

Juvenile court describes, in practice, the forum for criminal proceedings against children and young people. It is a descriptive term; each jurisdiction uses its own formal structure.England and Wales: the youth court, a specialist magistrates’ court for 10–17-year-olds (serious cases may go to the Crown Court). Hearings are not in public, reporting restrictions generally apply, and there are adapted procedures, diversion and youth-specific sentencing.Scotland: most matters are dealt with by the children’s hearings system under the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, rather than a court. Prosecution of older children for serious offences proceeds in the sheriff or High Court with reporting restrictions. ‘Juvenile court’ is not used.Northern Ireland: the Youth Court, a sitting of the Magistrates’ Court for 10–17-year-olds, with closed hearings, statutory anonymity and tailored disposals, under youth justice legislation including the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.Ireland: the Children’s Court under the Children Act 2001 hears cases involving under-18s, generally in private, with strict reporting restrictions and access to diversion.Practitioners therefore use ‘juvenile court’ as convenient shorthand when comparing youth justice systems, but should identify the correct forum and applicable procedural and sentencing regimes.