header-logo header-logo

20 November 2015 / Michael L Nash
Issue: 7677 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Opening Pandora’s box

nlj_7677_nash

Michael L Nash discusses DNA & disputed titles

“I am my father’s son, according to my mother”, runs an old saying, but now the advent of DNA testing and techniques has added another factor to the equation.

On 11 October 2015 it was reported that the Queen, in a most unusual step, had referred a disputed titles case to the Baronetage Committee of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, something which had not been done since 1927.

This most august body, composed of senior judges from Britain and the Commonwealth, meets in informal style in Whitehall, governed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Act of 1833. It is under s 4 of this Act that the Queen has made the referral. The section states: “Her Majesty may refer any other matters to the Committee”, a kind of catch-all section for matters on which the Queen seeks advice. The judgments of the Judicial Committtee take the form of advice to the Queen, but they have the same status as those of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll