Duty of Care to Protect Whistleblowers

In April 2020, the High Court of England and Wales held in the decision of Amjad Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Limited & Others [2020] EWHC 901 that there exists a duty of care to protect whistleblowers in circumstances that fall outside the scope of statutory protection regimes.

This article then dissects this decision and discusses the scenarios in which such a duty of care exists and the narrow factual matrix that such duty may be imposed to protect whistleblowers. … More Duty of Care to Protect Whistleblowers

Does the Qualification of “Inventor” under Patent Law extend to Artificial Intelligence?

The Court of Appeal in Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374 answered this question by concluding that because an artificial intelligence machine is not a person, it cannot be considered as an “inventor” for the purposes of Sections 7 and 13 of the UK Patents Act. This article will provide a brief overview of the decision. … More Does the Qualification of “Inventor” under Patent Law extend to Artificial Intelligence?

A Brief Overview of Norman v UK (Application no. 41387/17)

The European Court of Human Rights published its judgement in the case of Norman v UK (Application no. 41387/17) on the 6th of July, 2021. Mr Robert Norman, a prison officer at Belmarsh Prison, was convicted of misconduct in public office in 2015 for providing a tabloid journalist with a range of information in exchange for money. The newspaper subsequently disclosed his name to the police in the context of an investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments by newspapers to public officials. The applicant was prosecuted and convicted of misconduct in public office. The ECtHR ruled that there was no breach of Article 7 or Article 10 of the ECHR. … More A Brief Overview of Norman v UK (Application no. 41387/17)

Facebook’s Hate Speech Policy – A Violation of German Constitutional Rights

In its ruling on the 29th of July, the Federal Court of Justice in Germany held that Facebook’s hate speech policy is in breach of their citizens’ constitutional rights. This is a landmark decision for social media companies, especially with regards to their policing of content and the balance of fundamental rights that need to be maintained.

Although the full grounds of judgement have yet to be published, this case update will focus on the summary judgement and the rationale behind the courts decision. … More Facebook’s Hate Speech Policy – A Violation of German Constitutional Rights

UK Supreme Court clarifies test for scope of duty of care for negligent professional advice

In a landmark judgment, the UK Supreme Court in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton [2021] UKSC 20 has clarified the test for determining liability for losses suffered as a result of negligent professional advice, i.e. the “scope of duty” test. The decision is significant as it reformulates the approach in SAAMCO, which has proved problematic for the courts since its inception. The scope of duty test now calls for the focus to be placed on the purpose of the duty of the professional person giving the advice. This blog post explains what this new test entails and how it differs from the approach in SAAMCO. … More UK Supreme Court clarifies test for scope of duty of care for negligent professional advice

The World Does Not Have to Remember Everything About You – The Right to be Forgotten

In the landmark decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the right to be forgotten came to existence. Although the European Union may be the first to formally recognise this right, to date other countries such as India have been working on developing more comprehensive protection regimes for this right.

This article explores the history of the right to be forgotten and brings to light latest decisions in upholding this right alongside its relation to public interest. … More The World Does Not Have to Remember Everything About You – The Right to be Forgotten

The Doctrine of Ratification: Can Directors Ratify Their Own Acts?

Can you forgive yourself for your past mistakes? Many struggled but some moved on. However, for company directors, the law says you can! Recently, the High Court in Dato’ Shun Leong Kwong & Anor v Menang Corporation (M) Bhd & Ors held that directors could ratify their own mistake because it was a mere irregularity. This article seeks to discuss the doctrine of ratification against the backdrop of company disputes. … More The Doctrine of Ratification: Can Directors Ratify Their Own Acts?

Big Data – The Overlooked Undercurrent

Recently, netizens are outraged by the leakage of personal data collected for vaccination purposes. Such phenomena are not new, rather many users have complained of receiving unwanted texts and calls for marketing purposes. However, the power of data lies beyond personal data, i.e. data that leads to identifiable individuals. Anonymized data, such as big data and artificial intelligence, can nonetheless paint consumers’ behavior and leads to a plethora of problems. This article will look into these issues and also the protection mechanisms in place both domestically and internationally. … More Big Data – The Overlooked Undercurrent

Data Breach: Not A Matter to Clown Around With

The unexpected visit from the COVID-19 pandemic, led to cybersecurity challenges being brought to the limelight. With most countries imposing lockdowns and mandatory remote working orders, companies found their employees dealing with confidential information from unsecure home Wi-Fi Networks. This increased their susceptibility to cyberattacks. Although beginning with simple scams such as phishing emails, since the start of 2021, this has escalated into cyberattacks on large organizations, and an increase in ransomware and double-extortion crimes.

This article will delve into a string of recent cyberattacks and ransomware attacks, before looking into the laws pertaining to cybersecurity from a Malaysian standpoint. … More Data Breach: Not A Matter to Clown Around With

The Dealing Requirement in the Unlawful Means Tort – Essential or Not?

The UK Supreme Court recently in Secretary of State for Health & Anor v Servier Laboratories Ltd & Ors [2021] UKSC 24 ruled that for an unlawful means tort, it is necessary to prove that the unlawful means have affected the third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant. The UK Supreme Court has referred to this element as the “dealing requirement”. … More The Dealing Requirement in the Unlawful Means Tort – Essential or Not?