Diary news plus insights, commentary and appointments from the legal world

21^st March 2025

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:

RED TAPE – SNIP IT WITH CARE

You don’t want to be coming back here too often

The need to improve and speed efficiency in achieving legal outcomes has becoming a guiding principle for the Labour Government as it strives to boost growth and productivity. Unlike in the USA where the DOGE is taking a sledge-hammer and chain-saw to regulations in Whitehall it is more likely to be a pair of scissors for red tape and the adoption of AI. However, as Joanna Ludlam, public law expert and partner at Jenner & Block points out, even these need to be wielded with care.

“A greater reliance on AI in decision-making, coupled with increased pressure to take decisions more quickly, is bound to increase the risk of a failure to comply with the requirements of public law and, in consequence, a greater risk that decisions will be challenged by way of judicial review.  This could ironically lead to the delays and hurdles that this Government is so keen to eliminate.”

In other words, more haste, less speed.

The Legal Diarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Kennedys Opens New Horizons for Insurance Biz

Barriers to LegalTech in APAC

Courts Opens the Taps in Thames Case

Leading in Leeds

+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

TRIBUNAL DECISION FOCUSES EMPLOYERS’ ATTENTION ON THEIR AUTO-ENROLMENT DUTIES by Ben Fairhead

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

on the ‘ Waspi women’s legal challenge to the Government, the National Audit Office’s criticism of the Home Office for multiple changes to visa route for skilled workers, the Online Safety Act’s illegal content codes

+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

at Vedder Price and Akin

——————————————————————————-

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

Kennedys Opens New Horizons for Insurance Biz

“It’s all computer!” someone said earlier this week and the quote instantly went global in relation to the promotion of a failing car brand. And, although naïve, the truth was plain to see – the motor vehicle, like most else these days, had almost entirely been handed over to the power of IT (or, indeed AI). Notwithstanding this, sales of the vehicle continued to fall.

The same is not likely to happen in the world of insurance where Kennedys IQ, the technology division of Kennedys Law LLP, has just launched ‘Kennedys IQ SmartRisk’, the first fully explainable neuro-symbolic AI risk analysis solution. According to the official publicity ‘Kennedys IQ SmartRisk will transform how insurers approach policy review, liability, and coverage analysis by accelerating review and decision-making whilst improving accuracy and consistency.’

To the outside observer it does indeed sound ‘all computer’ and at the cutting edge of that computer too. ‘Kennedys IQ SmartRisk leverages a hybrid approach, integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) with insurance knowledge modelled using Evidential Reasoning (ER), and Belief Rule Base (BRB) methodologies. Kennedys IQ SmartRisk goes beyond pure language processing, providing insurers with a structured decision-making framework’.

What is undoubtedly impressive (aside from going beyond ‘pure language’) is that all of this is coming from a ’legal stable’. Back in the day it was accountants who were supposed to come up with this kind of extra-mural product but now law firms are doing it for themselves.

“There is a growing demand for AI-driven automation in insurance, particularly within specialty and complex risk underwriting,” said Karim Derrick, Chief Product Officer, Kennedys IQ. “Policy wording analysis and claims handling are complex, inconsistent, and prone to human error, and GenAI chatbots today lack auditability, making them unsuitable for insurance risk assessment.

“Our interest is helping clients identify, manage and mitigate risk through the SmartRisk tool which can fill this gap to ensure transparency in decision making and regulatory compliance. In doing so, it eliminates the ‘black box’ concern around other AI models, while improving efficiency, minimising human error and providing insurers and brokers with deeper data-driven insights. Kennedys IQ’s SmartRisk frees up insurance professionals to focus on high-value decision-making while maintaining full control over risk analysis.”

Yes, it’s clearly good to go ‘all computer’ – at least if you can then take the really smart decisions.

Barriers to LegalTech in APAC

It’s not just in insurance that legal technology is reshaping the way lawyers and their clients work – it’s happening in arbitration as well. However, according to a new survey from  Opus 2, a legal software and services provider, its introduction is proving something of a struggle in Hong Kong, Singapore and China where there are the ‘persisting barriers surrounding tech adoption in the legal sector’.

Despite this the report identifies that

• Hybrid hearings are now commonplace 
  Most respondents have participated in hybrid hearings within the past six months, marking a sustained shift toward flexible hearing formats. 
• AI adoption is limited but gaining ground 
  65% of respondents expressed interest in AI-assisted document analysis, case summarisation, and translation, but 81% stated that they have never used AI in hearings.

Those ‘barriers’ to a faster take-up of AI and other new legal technology include, apparently, cost, lack of training, and infrastructure challenges. “Ensuring equitable access to technology remains a concern, particularly in cross-border disputes,” according to the report.

Nonetheless there are marked differences across the three jurisdictions. “38% of Hong Kong respondents report using electronic bundles in at least half of their hearings, while only 10% of respondents in Singapore report using them regularly. Singapore, however, shows a notable increase in the use of electronic evidence presentation (81%) and real-time transcription (76%).”

No doubt within a decade all this will have changed. To speed things up maybe managing partners in the leading law firms should read the just-published latest book from legal IT guru Richard Susskind ‘HOW TO THINK ABOUT AI: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED’ (Oxford University Press). “I now believe that balancing the benefits and threats of artificial intelligence – saving humanity with and from AI – is the defining challenge of our age,” says Susskind sagely.

For more download The state of hearings in APAC report :

https://www.opus2.com/the-state-of-hearings-in-apac/

Courts Opens the Taps in Thames Case

Leaving aside the ‘drama-a-day from the USA’, by far the most gripping programme on TV this week was the BBC’s series Thames Water: Inside the Crisis which told the story, month-by-month, of the country’s most indebted water company as it appeared to be heading down the drain.

Journalist Barnaby Peel more-or-less lived with the besieged Thames Water staff as they fought battles every week with the clapped out infrastructure while pondering whether they would have a job come this Spring.

Almost at the last moment the courts gave the business the go-ahead to raise more money thereby green-lighting a £3bn bailout. While it was good that that the salt-of-the-earth Thames Water staff were still in employment (at least for the time being) it was clear from their own comments that they felt that the end-game was in sight for the business.

“This is good news for Thames Water’s current creditors,” said Helen Young, Senior Associate at SA Law, “as without the opportunity to borrow more money and restructure, their chances of being repaid would have been much lower compared to a scenario involving administration.

Even though the company will receive the £3 billion funding, I still suspect that it will eventually face government-backed administration due to the overwhelming interest rates associated with any future borrowing – but perhaps in a month or two rather than days.”

In a ‘Special Administration’ situation, Young went on to say, the financial risks of the company would transfer to the public sector so it’s going to come at the taxpayers’ cost. Either way, it looks like Thames’ customers’ bills are expected to rise. But then, bluntly, they would need to. Whether the on-screen water workers stay in the picture remains to be seen.

Leading in Leeds

Last week we had Manchester reminding us what a thriving and expanding legal centre it was. And now we have Leeds doing the same.

The best proof of that is that Devonshires has announced that it is doubling its ‘footprint’ in the city through a move into new offices at Aire Park in what is described as the city’s ‘vibrant South Bank’.

From its London base the firm has been growing significantly in recent years with one of its keys developments being the original opening in Leeds back in 2017. Since then it has trebled in size and it is now making a big statement by shifting across to the smart new 24-acre mixed-use commercial and residential neighbourhood of Aire Park.

“The excitement felt by clients and staff alike at the prospect of being at the heart of one of the most exciting developments in Leeds is palpable,” said Gary Grigor who manages the office along with Chris Drabble. “We are really looking forward to making Aire Park our new home and welcoming clients, old and new, to our working space For Chris and I, the move marks a pivotal and proud moment as we embark on the next chapter of the firm’s evolution in the North.”

Chris Drabble added, “Aire Park will undoubtedly bring much positive change to the city’s landscape so we’re delighted to be the first business in situ and look forward to making an even more significant contribution to the thriving city of Leeds and serving our clients across the country.”

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

TRIBUNAL DECISION FOCUSES EMPLOYERS’ ATTENTION ON THEIR AUTO-ENROLMENT DUTIES

by Ben Fairhead

Underscoring the importance of employers’ compliance with statutory duties and maintaining accurate and up-to-date registered office details, a recent First-tier Tribunal decision is a reminder about adhering to their auto-enrolment obligations and the financial consequences of non-compliance.

First Steps Together Ltd, a Manchester-based company incorporated in October 2022, appealed against penalties imposed by The Pensions Regulator (TPR). Between September and December 2023, an initial penalty of £400 escalated to penalties totalling £14,400.

TPR argued that the company was required to submit a declaration of compliance by 22 June 2023, and did not do so, despite several letters and emails being sent, requesting the appellant to update its details and reminding it to comply.

In delivering its decision, the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) dismissed the appeal relating to fixed penalty notices (FPNs) and escalating penalty notices (EPNs) due to the company’s failure to comply with its auto-enrolment duties under the Pensions Act 2008 (The Act).

The law is clear. Under the Act, employers must enrol eligible employees in a pension scheme and provide TPR with a declaration of compliance. Failure to comply can result in a FPN of £400 and an EPN if non-compliance persists.

In contesting the penalties, First Steps Together argued that it had not received the relevant notices because of address changes and that its accountants were responsible for pension administration. TPR maintained that the notices were properly issued to the company’s registered address. In the Tribunal appeal, Judge Maton found that the notices were properly served to that address and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of service.

The Tribunal found that the company’s failure to update its registered address or the delegation of duties to accountants did not absolve its responsibilities under the Act and were not reasonable excuses for non-compliance. In dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal upheld TPR’s penalties.

TPR has issued multiple penalties when correspondence has been missed because of incorrect registered office addresses. The Tribunal decision is a further salutary lesson for employers to ensure that their Company House records are current and that there is no danger of correspondence from the Regulator slipping through the cracks.

Employers must actively manage their pension duties. Given how TPR penalties can rapidly escalate, a relatively simple administrative error can become very costly. If a company uses its accountant’s address, it should be clear in its arrangements with those accountants where responsibilities lie.

Ben Fairhead is a partner at Arc Pensions Law

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC: The launch this week by the ‘ Waspi women’ of their legal challenge against the Government

COMMENT BY: Jo Mackie, Partner, Employment Law, Burlingtons

 “The government quotes evidence they say indicates that 90% of the WASPI women knew of changes to the state pension. This will be a difficult point to argue for the women, despite the Ombudsman’s findings because it is subjective and open to interpretation.

“However sympathetic people are, the budget does not exist to pay the compensation. The government has made incremental changes to those of state pension age for decades and will do so again as it is unsustainable with more people ageing than there are to pay pension contributions. The public policy considerations for the government mean they simply cannot afford to back down.”

TOPIC: The criticism by the National Audit Office (NAO) of the Home Office for making multiple changes to a visa route for skilled workers without fully assessing the impacts

COMMENT BY: Madni Chaudhary, Senior Associate. Immigration team, Michelmores

“The Home Office has indeed repeatedly altered the Skilled Worker visa route without properly assessing the potential impacts. Major decisions, including bringing care workers into the scope of Skilled Worker visas in 2022 and then sharply tightening rules in 2024 were rushed without sufficient consultation. This caused disruptions and adversely impacted businesses. While flexibility in immigration policy is essential, the Government and the Home Office should ensure changes are evidence based to avoid damaging public confidence and undermining the route’s intended economic benefits.

 “It must be said that the Skilled Worker visa category, along with the broader visa system, are providing value for money. According to the report, the Skilled Worker visa route delivers significant economic benefits to the UK, generating financial returns that far outweigh its administrative costs. In the 2023/24 financial year, the Home Office collected approximately £2.6 billion in visa fees, of which approximately £438 million came from Skilled Worker visa fees. This figure vastly exceeds the Home Office’s processing costs for Skilled Worker visas, which stood at approximately £109 million. In addition, the Immigration Health Surcharge (a contribution to the NHS that most migrants must pay) raised £1.8 billion, and the Immigration Skills Charge (a levy that all sponsoring employers must pay) contributed a further £700 million. This positive financial impact does not take into consideration that migrants and their employers also contribute through taxes such as National Insurance, PAYE, and VAT. Indeed, an analysis by the Migration Advisory Committee confirms that on average migrants entering the UK under this route make a positive net contribution to public finances.”

TOPIC: The Online Safety Act’s illegal content codes which came into force this week and the obligations on tech companies to demonstrate their accountability

COMMENT BY: Iona Silverman, Intellectual Property & Media, Freeths 

 “Although Ofcom is the regulator, we should not forget that the primary responsibility for compliance with the Online Safety Act falls to online platforms. It is on them to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content, and to generally increase transparency and control for all users. Ofcom’s fining powers of up to £18 million or 10% of their qualifying global turnover should have spurred the social media giants and other online platforms into action. However, there is no evidence of any steps having been taken by platforms to engage on the topic, let alone comply with the regulations.

On the contrary, Meta announced in January that it was removing its third-party fact-checking, to move to a community notes style model. Mark Zukerberg openly admitted that changes to the way Meta filters content will mean “we’re going to catch less bad stuff”. The changes were justified by Meta on the basis that they are required to allow free speech. JD Vance’s statement last month that free speech in the UK was in retreat, is a nonsense predicated on a personal, political agenda. I agree with the British government’s view: that the Online Safety Act is about tackling criminality, not censoring debate. Given the behaviour of online platforms to date, to enable the Online Safety Act to have the intended effect, Ofcom will need to take a robust stance. I would like to see it critically review content and issue substantial fines to any platforms that aren’t taking the steps that are needed to keep people safe online.”

COMMENT BY: Mark Jones, Partner, Payne Hicks Beach

“This week was the deadline by which tech companies must have completed their illegal harms risk assessments; assessing the risks that illegal harms may pose to users of their service. Ofcom has provided guidance on what it expects to be included in the risk assessment, including risk profiles which can be used as the basis for the assessment. Completing the risk assessment is not enough, tech companies need to set out how they will tackle illegal harms and proactively seek and remove such content.

In the event of non-compliance, Ofcom have the power to fine companies up to £18m or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue – whichever is greater – and in very serious cases can apply for a court order to block a site in the UK. Ofcom has signalled that it will take action where tech firms are not complying and that it will do so swiftly. Whether that will be informal guidance or more serious enforcement action will depend on the nature and extent of any breach.

The new framework in the Online Safety Act and the Illegal Harms Codes requires tech companies to be proactive in identifying and removing illegal content and demonstrate their accountability. This marks a considerable sea change from only reacting when notified about illegal or harmful content. An appropriate measure needs to be proportionate to the tech company concerned. Matters such as the type of service provided, features and functionalities of the service, the number of users and the results of the illegal harms risk assessment are all factors to be taken into account. Some measures apply to all services regardless, such as naming an individual accountable for online safety compliance and ensuring that terms of service and/or publicly available statements are clear and accessible.

In relation to protecting children, on platforms where users connect with each other, children’s profiles and locations as well as their friends and connections should not be visible to other users, and non-connected accounts should not be able to send them direct messages. In relation to protecting women and girls, users will be able to block and mute others who are harassing or stalking them. Sites and apps must also take down non-consensual intimate images when they become aware of it.

More generally, providers should, as part of their content moderation function, have systems and processes designed to review and assess content the provider has reason to suspect may be illegal content. This will allow the provider to swiftly act and take down such content.”

APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

VEDDER PRICE

Helen Biggin is joining Vedder Price as a partner. This is a key step in the firm’s plans to expand its litigation practice and arbitration service offerings in the UK and elsewhere including to its transportation finance clients.

Biggin has a special focus on aviation and shipping matters, having previously advocated before the Commercial Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. She is a member of the legal advisory panel for the Aviation Working Group and extensive experience as a litigator, particularly in commercial claims, breach of confidence claims and high-value fraud matters.

 “We are very pleased to have Helen joining us in London where her significant litigation experience will add another string to our bow,” said Jonathan Maude, Managing Partner of Vedder Price’s London office. “We’ve continued to build on our successes since the London office opened in 2011 and to develop a multifaceted offering to meet our clients’ needs. Helen’s hiring and the addition of a complex commercial litigation practice is only the latest step on that journey. I look forward to working closely with Helen in the coming months to support the growth of Vedder Price’s London litigation practice and our London office offering generally.”

AKIN

Alexander Malahias has joined Akin in its corporate practice to co-lead the launch of the firm’s office in Riyadh which is expected later this year. For the time being he will be based in Akin’s Abu Dhabi office until the firm receives its final approvals on its application for a license to operate in Saudi Arabia.

Formerly with White & Case, Malahias has extensive experience advising government entities, sponsors, financial institutions, corporate and creditor clients on ‘first-of-their-kind’ project finance transactions across Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and across the Middle East. His arrival with Akin is designed to strengthen Akin’s energy transition team, enhancing the firm’s offering in this rapidly evolving space.

“Our upcoming launch in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a critical piece of our long-term growth strategy and our existing practice strengths are purpose-built to serve the needs of the Kingdom,” said Akin co-chair elect Abid Qureshi. “We continue to see sustained, long-term growth in the Middle East, and this is the next step in building out our capabilities in the region. Our clients are seeking trusted advisors with deep local insight.”

We hope that you’ve been interested or amused by something in this week’s LEGAL DIARY. If so do send on to colleagues.

And please continue sending your ‘Diary-type’ stories, insights legal comment and appointments to

fennell.edward@yahoo.com