Matthew Bradley analyses the decision of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in the Commercial Court to dismiss a serious irregularity challenge to a LCIA tribunal’s award for failure to deal with all the issues that were put to it.
The penultimate instalment in 4 New Square’s GDPR series- what happens when professionals get their GDPR advice wrong? Inevitably it will transpire that mistakes will have been made by professionals giving (often very expensive) guidance on GDPR compliance. Their clients will want to consider whether a claim for professional negligence can be made. In this article Neil Hext QC, Stephen Innes and Helen Evans of 4 New Square discuss some of the issues which are likely to arise in such claims.
The Commercial Court has recently criticised the practice that is commonly adopted for presenting challenges under sections 67 & 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Ben Elkington QC and Rick Liddell review the decision:
Richard Liddell, Kendrah Potts and William Harman look at some of the principal enforcement risks facing sporting bodies under the new regime described by the ICO as a “game-changer” and consider how the GDPR might feed into existing facets of sports dispute resolution.
Notwithstanding assurances from the Information Commissioner that they “prefer the carrot to the stick” the fact remains that the ICO will have the power under Article 83(4) the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) to levy fines of up to €10million or 2% of annual global turnover on data controllers. Alison Padfield QC, Clare Dixon and Peter Morcos consider which aspects of GDPR compliance are likely to be insurable and/or insured, focussing in particular upon: (a) the insurability (or otherwise) of fines; (b) new potential liabilities under the GDPR; and (c) the potential pitfalls of assuming that cyber insurance will cover all civil liabilities under GDPR.