Home

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the case of Prismall v Google UK Ltd and DeepMind Technologies Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1516. Finding for Google, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower Court’s decision to strike out the claim, and offered some further guidance on the threshold to be met for a claim to proceed as a representative action under CPR 19.8, particularly in relation to claims for the misuse of private information. The Court of Appeal explained that “a representative class claim for misuse of private information is always going to be very difficult to bring”. This is because the circumstances of individual claimants will affect the determination as to whether any particular claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This will in turn affect whether all members of the represented class can meet the required “same interest” test in order to found a representative action under CPR 19.8 (see our previous article).

We explore the trends for Business and Commercial Disputes in the UK, US and France/EU in 2025. Here's what you should know. UK In the spotlight: corporates asserting privilege against shareholders Continued focus on litigation funding Increase in open justice Easier enforcement Court-compelled Negotiated Dispute Resolution – watch this space France Rise of mass claims in France and rise of class actions in France and the EU The new EU product liability directive adopted on October 11, 2024 Rise of ESG related claims US More M&A deals means more post-closing disputes? Head off rising number of workplace issues with internal investigations Disclosure of litigation funding in the United States

Welcome to the Corporate Briefing, where we review the latest developments in UK corporate law that you need to know about. In this month’s issue we discuss: FRC thematic review of climate-related financial disclosures by AIM and large private companies The FRC has published a thematic review of climate-related financial disclosures for in-scope AIM and large private companies and identified areas for improvement and expectations.

In the absence of enforceable federal standards for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in soil, several states have started the process of regulating PFAS in soil themselves.  These regulations have implications for due diligence, site investigations, and remediation decisions.  This client alert explores the current landscape of state regulations regarding the advisory, notification, and cleanup levels for PFAS – most commonly perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and perfluorooctanoic acid (”PFOA”)  – in soil.