AI chatbots and privilege
The Upper Tribunal held that a lawyer who uploads confidential information to an open- source AI tool has breached client confidentiality and waived privilege over that information. This conduct should be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office and may warrant referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department).
Read our article on AI chatbots, LLMs and the risk of losing privilege.
Court issue fees and limitation
Proceedings will be brought in time under the Limitation Act 1980 whether or not the claim form is accompanied by the wrong issue fee. This is the position whether the claim is filed electronically or not and whether the court issues the claim or not. The claimant’s, or their lawyer’s, mindset when bringing the claim is irrelevant at this point. There are other sanctions available to the court such as striking out the claim where the claimant makes a deliberate underpayment or delays in paying a shortfall (Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey).
Service
The fact that the defendant owned a house in London was not enough to found jurisdiction over him so that he could be served with proceedings at that address. The defendant was precluded from entering the UK following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The fact that he intended to return was not enough to found jurisdiction over him: this wasn't a temporary absence but a state-imposed ban. However, if permission was granted to serve him out of the jurisdiction, the claimant could apply for an order for substituted service at his London address (Fridman v Agrofirma Oniks LLC).
Mandatory electronic issue of proceedings
A legally represented claimant had not “brought” proceedings in time under the Limitation Act 1980 where the claim form was sent to the court by post. There is a mandatory requirement under Practice Direction 51O (now PD 5C) to issue proceedings electronically in the High Court (excluding the Administrative Court) where the claimant is represented. The claimant had accordingly not done all that could reasonably be expected of them. A litigant in person is not subject to the same requirement and is able to issue proceedings by post if they wish (Lukins v Quality Part X Ltd).
Limitation and unfair prejudice petitions
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal, confirming the generally held view that shareholders bringing unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 are not subject to a limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980. However, the court may take account of unjustified delay by the claimant which has an adverse effect on a respondent or others when exercising its discretion to grant or refuse a remedy (THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd).
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.