header-logo header-logo

13 December 2012
Issue: 7542 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Ontrack with legal highs & lows

The Jackson effect, BYOD & dawn raids dominate legal trends

The risks of employees using their own smartphone for work, the Jackson “Big Bang” reforms, and a tough regulatory climate are some of the key trends of 2012 highlighted by this year’s Kroll Ontrack review.

The costs of civil litigation were in the spotlight this year, with senior judges voicing concerns about the high costs involved in bringing an action, the Jackson reforms, and the case of Sylvia Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 90218 (Costs), which found that lawyers are vulnerable if they don’t have a reliable method of monitoring adherence to budgets.

Concerns over how to protect company data where employees use their iPads, iPhones, smartphones and tablets (the “bring your own device” (BYOD) phenomenon) have been a big issue for companies this year, according to the review, which identifies the key legal trends of the year. A BYOD strategy is seen as essential for next year to protect corporate data, comply with data-protection laws and preserve electronic information in case of regulatory investigation.

“Dawn raid” training is becoming increasingly popular as companies find that regulatory investigations hit them out of the blue. The review also points out that regulatory changes in data-protection and competition law this year mean companies should continue to take a proactive approach to risk avoidance and compliance.

Martin Carey, managing director of legal technologies at Kroll Ontrack, says: “Court-led changes are underway which will have a significant effect on litigation in the UK, and legislative and structural changes will impact on regulatory enforcement activity across Europe. At the same time, new consumer-led technology is re-shaping the way in which business is conducted and all companies need to respond strategically.”

Issue: 7542 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll