News

You're looking at 1–10 of 4926 items.

February 17, 2025

February Update for Irish Criminal Law - definition of a computer

Laura Byrne BL provides in-depth case analysis of Yavor Poptoshev v DPP, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, Ireland and Attorney General in the February issue of Irish Criminal Law for our Criminal Law subscribers. The decision examines interesting arguments about the privilege against self-incrimination and principles of statutory interpretation.

Key words: 

Bradley J – 11 December 2024 – High Court – [2024] IEHC 721

judicial review – password – privilege against self-incrimination – definition of computer – statutory interpretation

February 17, 2025

Ninth Edition of Conveyancing Practice in Scotland Now Available

The Ninth Edition of Conveyancing Practice in Scotland is now available for subscribers. 

Conveyancing Practice in Scotland is the only comprehensive practical guide to managing conveyancing transactions in Scotland.

Encompassing both commercial and residential conveyancing, this text covers the property law aspects as well as the practical and ethical considerations of acting in a conveyancing transaction, such as anti-money laundering procedures and conflicts of interest. Standard missive clauses are examined in detail with reference to their application in practice.

The Ninth Edition of this highly regarded text has been updated to encompass the many changes to property law and conveyancing practice in recent years. It covers:

  • Transformation of the land registration process – Digital Submission Service and Register Land and Property
  • The Register of Persons Holding a Controlled Interest in Land
  • Practice in electronic signing, and electronic registration
  • The effect on practice of the Register of Overseas Entities
  • Ongoing land reform
  • Proposals for reform of tenement law
  • Proposals for reform of heritable securities
  • Updates on case law and legislation

This is an essential guide for both commercial and residential property lawyers, property law students and paralegals.

February 14, 2025

Corporation Tax 2024/25 (February 2025)

The latest update to our Corporation Tax Annual is now live for subscribers.

February 13, 2025

Issue 43 of Law of Limitation Now Available

Issue 43 of Law of Limitation is now available for subscribers. 

The work is revised to take account of developments in case law and new statutory material which have affected the areas of Land (Division B), Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence (Division C) and Tort (Division D).

February 12, 2025

February 2025 Edition of Irish Wills and Probate Update Now Live

The February edition of Irish Wills and Probate is now live for subscribers of the service.

Stephen Spierin and Brian Spierin write about the recent case of CB v PP & Anor; DB v PP & Anor. This was a decision relating to an application in respect of two related claims brought pursuant to ss 117 and 121 of the Succession Act 1965. They also provide comment and analysis of another recent case PF v BH. It is infrequent and usually uncommon for the Circuit Court to deliver written decisions, but this decision is noteworthy for a number of reasons, not least because decisions on s 117 claims are instructive and provide guidance as to how a court will treat such claims.

To purchase a subscription, organise a free trial or request a remote demonstration, email bpireland@bloomsbury.com 

February 11, 2025

The Bloomsbury Professional Company Law Seminar 2025

Bloomsbury Professional Ireland are delighted to be hosting a new company law seminar: Emerging and Overlooked Liabilities of Company Directors on Thursday 10th April at Chartered Accountants Ireland, Pearse St, Dublin 2. This half-day event from 8.30-12.30 features the leading names in company and tort law in Ireland. With Dr Thomas B. Courtney acting as Chair, the seminar will focus on new developments in the area, in particular on potential liabilities for company directors if they are in breach of the law.

Speakers for this seminar include Professor William Binchy, Senator Michael McDowell SC, Shelley Horan BL, and Kelley Smith SC. The sessions for this event cover topics such as directors’ liability in tort, attachment of directors for civil contempt under s 53 of the Companies Act 2014, criminal liability of directors, and personal liability of directors. Delegates to the seminar will earn 4 CPD points.

Full Price: €450 

Early Bird Price: €395

Early Bird offer ends February 28th

Please email irelandevents@bloomsbury.com to book your place.

February 10, 2025

Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing February 2025

The February issue of the Bloomsbury Family Law Briefing is now available for subscribers. 

Case Summaries 

Re X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) [2025] EWCA Civ 2 (13 January 2025) – There is no inherent jurisdiction in the High Court to set aside or revoke an adoption order, save on appeal against the original order to the appropriate appellate court.

The Father v Worcestershire County Council [2025] UKSC 1 (29 January 2025) – A father was not entitled to challenge by writ of habeas corpus a care order made on his child, nor to challenge such an order by judicial review.

HA v EN [2025] EWHC 48 (Fam) (6 January 2025), Richard Todd KC as a High Court judge – W’s application for maintenance pending suit (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), s 22: Maintenance Pending Suit (MPS)) and legal services payment order (MCA 1973, s 22ZA: Legal Services Payment Order). Order made and appropriate parts of the orders charged on the parties former matrimonial home under Solicitors Act 1974, s 73 (ie the solicitor’s statutory charge on property recovered through the solicitors’ instrumentality).

PM v RM [2025] EWFC 11 (20 January 2025) Justin Warshaw KC as a High Court judge – W’s application for MPS (MCA 1973, s 22) and LSPO (MCA 1973, s 22ZA) orders allowed. Injunction against a second respondent ie trustees of A Trust, prohibiting them from dealing with the family home, refused.

Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 42 (24 January 2025) – A judge, in this case a judge of the Family Division, has no jurisdiction to anonymise the names of judges at earlier stages of children proceedings; and in the absence of any application by three judges to seek anonymisation (per Sir Geoffrey Vos MR).

Potanina: Supreme Court and putting right overseas divorce procedure

In Potanina v Potanin [2024] UKSC 3, [2024] AC 1063, [2024] 1 FLR 1040 (31 January 2024) the Supreme Court reviewed procedure in a narrow range of family proceedings; and in doing so the Court commented on – and put right were there any doubt on the matter – the much wider procedural issue of procedure where a court order has been made without notice to the intended respondent to it.

Here a spouse applicant (the wife in this case: A) was seeking permission to proceed under Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984), Pt 3 (‘financial relief after an overseas divorce’). By following procedural principles outlined by the Supreme Court in Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13, [2010] 1 AC 628 and in Family Proceedings Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), r 8.25 had been giving permission to an applicant (most often a wife: A); without notice to the respondent (R) and doing so in a way which was ‘unlawful’, as Potanina confirmed. The article explains why the MFPA 1984, Pt 3 procedure prior to Potanina was wrong and set out the correct procedure under FPR 2010, r 8.25 and in accordance with well-worn procedures under FPR 2010, rr 18.10 and 18.11. ‘What is required is [for judges] to apply the rules as they stand and not to disregard them’ said Lord Leggatt at [84].

February 10, 2025

IT/IP Update - CJEU Ruling: Supervisory Authorities Must Prove Abuse for 'Excessive' Requests

The expert team at William Fry have written an article about Case C-416/23. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified the concept of 'excessive' requests under Art 57(4) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The CJEU determined that requests submitted to data protection supervisory authorities cannot be considered 'excessive' solely based on their number. Instead, the supervisory authority must demonstrate the existence of an abusive intention on the part of the person submitting the request.

Read here for the background, decision and implications.

February 10, 2025

Bloomsbury IP/IT Law Briefing January 2025

The January issue of Bloomsbury IP/IT Law Briefing is now available for subscribers. 

In its judgment in Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 5, the Court of Appeal concluded that Aldi’s Taurus cider product infringed Thatcher’s UK trade mark, reversing the first instance finding.

The Court of Appeal declined to depart from EU Court of Justice (CJEU) case law in its judgment in Merck Serono SA v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 45, which concerned Merck’s application for a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for cladribine and the interpretation of Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation.

In Alcatel Lucent SAS v Amazon Digital UK Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 43, the Court of Appeal granted Amazon permission to make amendments to its counterclaim in its dispute with Alcatel/Nokia concerning whether a willing licensor would enter into an interim licence pending a final determination by the court.

The High Court rejected a claim by a researcher, Dr Vanessa Hill, that she was jointly entitled to the invention of certain patents and patent applications relating to so-called doggybone DNA (Hill v Touchlight Genetics Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 107 (Pat)).

In the latest judgment in a dispute concerning alleged infringement of copyright and other IP rights by the deep learning AI model called Stable Diffusion, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith refused permission for a representative claim as it did not identify a class with common interests (Getty Images (US) Inc & Ors v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 38 (Ch)).

The format of a sitcom series based on a live comedy night was not protected by copyright, and in any case was not infringed by a series called Live at the Moth Club, according to a judgment by Miss Recorder Amanda Michaels (Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions Ltd [2025] EWHC 39 (IPEC)).

In Case C‑93/23 P, EUIPO v Neoperl AG [ECLI:EU:C:2025:33], the CJEU set aside a judgment of the EU General Court in a case concerning an EU trade mark application, finding that the General Court had exceeded its jurisdiction.

Reversing a first instance decision, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled that the court has jurisdiction to decide a damages claim in a case where a national court had previously made a finding of infringement (Fives ECL, SAS v REEL GmbH UPC_CoA_30/2024).

Finally, the Düsseldorf local division has ruled that the UPC has jurisdiction to hear the infringement action in respect of the UK patent in suit, if the defendant is domiciled in a contracting member state (FUJIMFILM Corporation v Kodak GmbH UPC_CFI_355/2023). This also applies if the defendant has filed a counterclaim for revocation in respect of the German part of the patent in suit.

You're looking at 1–10 of 4926 items.

Archives

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011