THIS ISSUE
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are known to ‘hallucinate’, making up false information or confabulating to fill gaps in their knowledge. But who is responsible in law for any libel or harm caused as a result? In this week’s NLJ, Chloe Flascher, associate at Withers, addresses this fascinating conundrum.
In this week’s NLJ, Richard Scorer, head of abuse law & public inquiries at Slater and Gordon, highlights the necessity of ‘proper forensic scrutiny’ during public inquiries.
A recent employment appeal concerning a teacher dismissed for expressing gender-critical views on Facebook is a significant development in employment law because the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) focused on the ‘reason why’ question. In this week’s NLJ, Charles Pigott, professional support lawyer, Mills & Reeve, explains why the EAT’s approach ‘marks a significant development’ for discrimination claims, breaking new ground.
'Litigants who lose sometimes blame their lawyer' is a truth widely acknowledged in the legal sector. Writing in this week’s NLJ, Michael Bundock, barrister, dispute resolution, LexisNexis, looks specifically at the circumstances in which a negligence claim may be struck out as an abuse of process because it involves a collateral attack on the earlier judgment.
Public inquiries are most effective when their scrutiny goes below the surface, writes Richard Scorer
A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on gender-critical beliefs has brought human rights to the fore: Charles Pigott analyses a significant development for discrimination claims
What next when a disgruntled litigant decides to sue their lawyer for negligence after losing a case? Michael Bundock examines when such a claim may be struck out as an abuse
Neil Parpworth outlines the latest thinking—& some potential inaccuracies—from the Home Office on stop & search powers
Billions are spent on counterfeit goods in the EU & UK each year: Matti Lindberg & My Mattsson set out some top tips for brand owners to protect their rights online & on the ground
Artificial intelligence tools are not (yet) above creating false information: who could be liable for the serious harm suffered as a result of publishing that information? Chloe Flascher examines a thorny legal issue
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker
Firm strengthens catastrophic injury capability with partner promotions
DWF—Dean Gormley
Finance and restructuring team offering expands in Manchester with partner hire
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=4bc4826a_1)
Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin
Firm announces appointment of head of remortgage
NEWS
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
