United Kingdom ∙ Lloyd v Google: U.K. Supreme Court on Representative Actions for Personal Data Breach Claims

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 592-596
Author(s):  
M. Getz ◽  
K. Fearnside
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Data Breach

Data protection and passenger name record in judicial criminal matters under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199492
Author(s):  
Catherine Van de Heyning
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Record Data ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The submission discusses the provisions in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement on data protection as well as the consequences for the exchange of passenger name record data in the field of criminal and judicial cooperation. The author concludes that the impact of the Agreement will depend on the resolvement of the United Kingdom to uphold the standards of protection of personal data equivalent to the EU’s in order to reach an adequacy decision.

scholarly journals The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Sandrine Brachotte
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cultural Studies ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Pluralism ◽  
The Other ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Employment Equality

This article studies religious arbitration from the perspective of global legal pluralism, which embraces both normative plurality and cultural diversity. In this context, the article considers that UK arbitration law regulates both commercial and religious arbitration while relying on a monist conception of arbitration. It further identifies two intertwined issues regarding cultural diversity, which find their source in this monist conception. Firstly, through the study of Jivraj v. Hashwani ([2011] UKSC 40), this article shows that the governance of religious arbitration may generate a conflict between arbitration law and equality law, the avoidance of which can require sacrificing the objectives of one or the other branch of law. The Jivraj case concerned an Ismaili arbitration clause, requiring that all arbitrators be Ismaili—a clause valid under arbitration law but potentially not under employment-equality law. To avoid such conflict, the Supreme Court reduced the scope of employment-equality law, thereby excluding self-employed persons. Secondly, based on cultural studies of law, this article shows that the conception of arbitration underlying UK arbitration law is ill-suited to make sense of Ismaili arbitration. In view of these two issues, this article argues that UK arbitration law acknowledges normative multiplicity but fails to embrace the cultural diversity entangled therewith.

scholarly journals Insurance related problems in bareboat charter agreements

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Albano Gilabert Gascón
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Insurance Contract ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractIn 2017, the majority of the United Kingdom Supreme Court held in its judgment in the Gard Marine and Energy v China National Chartering (The Ocean Victory) case that, in bareboat charters under the ‘BARECON 89’ form, if both the owner and the charterer are jointly insured under a hull policy, the damages caused to the vessel by the charterer cannot be claimed by the insurer by way of subrogation after indemnifying the owner. The interpretation of the charter party leads to the conclusion that the liability between the parties is excluded. Faced with the Supreme Court’s decision, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) adopted a new standard bareboat charter agreement only a few months later, the ‘BARECON 2017’ form, which amends, among other clauses, the one related to insurance. The present paper analyses (i) the new wording of the clause mentioned above and (ii) its incidence on the relationship between the parties of both the charter agreement and the insurance contract and its consequences for possible third parties. Despite BIMCO’s attempt to change the solution adopted by the Supreme Court and his willingness to allow the insurer to claim in subrogation against the person who causes the loss, the consequences, as it will be seen, do not differ much in practice when the wrongdoer is the co-insured charterer. On the contrary, when the loss is caused by a time charter or a sub-charter, in principle, there will be no impediment for the insurer to sue him.

scholarly journals Dallah: the death knell for deference?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Anastasia Lee Fraser
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
English Court ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention

<p>This paper examines the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Minister of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, a rare case where an English court refused enforcement of an international arbitral award under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).  Although in Dallah the United Kingdom Supreme Court acknowledged the trend to limit reconsideration of the findings of arbitral tribunals in fact and in law, the Court considered it was bound to decide the question of validity de novo. Contrary to the tribunal, the Court held the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which it was subject and refused enforcement of the arbitral award.  This paper analyses how the English Supreme Court decided the legal issues before it. It concludes the English court could have reached the same decision on a more convincing basis. Even where the issue is initial consent, holding the court at the place of enforcement is always bound to decide a matter de novo neither serves the objectives of international commercial arbitration nor is necessary to promote the fundamental integrity of arbitral proceedings.</p>

Surrogacy and public policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 588-595
Author(s):  
Elaine O’Callaghan
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Commercial Surrogacy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom has held that it is not contrary to public policy to award damages in tort to fund a commercial surrogacy in another jurisdiction where this is lawful. This significant decision, in the case of Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14, will potentially have an impact on the regulation and reform of surrogacy law in the United Kingdom, Ireland and internationally. The judgment delivered by Lady Hale draws attention to multiple inconsistencies in the law, and it highlights, in particular, the need for effective regulation of domestic surrogacy. Legislators face an important and imminent challenge to reconcile the reality of commercial surrogacy with a deficient legal framework. This article seeks to highlight some of the important issues which this case has raised when considering regulation and reform of surrogacy law.

12. The Governance of Scotland and Wales

2021 ◽  
pp. 318-344
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Government Power ◽  
Geographical Separation ◽  
The Government

This chapter examines how the constitution has addressed the question of the geographical separation of government power in the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Wales, and discusses the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Acts of 1998 and 2006. It argues that although the Scotland Act 1998 and Government of Wales Act 2006 fall short of creating a ‘federal’ UK constitution similar to how the notion is understood in the United States, the constitutional significance of the devolution legislation should not be underestimated. The chapter also discusses the conduct and outcome of the 2014 independence referendum in Scotland. Consideration is given to the leading Supreme Court judgments on the nature and extent of the Scots Parliament’s legislative powers, and to the contents and implications of the Scotland Act 2016.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document