Developments in science and technology have transformed virtually every industry and although it has been slow to adapt, the legal sector is no different. Clients are increasingly turning to the internet for legal information, and why shouldn’t they? The internet has made accessing legal information quick, easy and most importantly- free. Law firms are under increasing pressure from better informed and more demanding clients who are more scrutinous of bills than those of the past. Whilst many lawyers see this as a significant business challenge, the legal industry has been notoriously slow to adopt new technology and processes that would not only make their jobs easier but also offer their clients better value for money. This could be due to the fact that until now, they have not had the incentive to do so. This has exposed gaps in the market that new legal technology start-ups are seeking to fill with an arsenal of products and services powered by machine learning, natural language processing and data visualization.
People have been discussing the idea of machines and computers replacing humans for years, and while the idea may seem far-fetched at the moment, we are starting to see the first steps of a potential AI revolution.
It was recently reported by the BBC that in the future jobs will increasingly be at risk of automation from artificial intelligence (AI).
Boston Consulting Group predicts that by 2025 up to one quarter of jobs in the United Kingdom will be replaced by AI of some type. In the longer term, it is predicted that 35% of existing jobs will be at risk of automation, according to a study from Oxford University and professional services firm Deloitte.
Google, owner of YouTube, has announced that it will help fund the legal fees for content creators who have received takedown notices, where their material is considered to be fair use.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has recently ruled in Case C-354/13 Fag og Arbejde v Kommunernes Landsforening (‘Kaltoft’)  All ER EC 265 that obesity could potentially constitute a disability.
Mr Kaltoft was a childminder hired by the Danish public authorities. After 15 years he was dismissed on the grounds of an alleged decline in workload; but he was unable to ascertain the specific reasons for dismissal. It was agreed that his obesity was mentioned at the meeting, but the manner in which this was discussed was in dispute.
Trisan Hyatt, tenant at Invictus Chambers, considers the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor and another (2015) EWCA Civ 935.
In January 2015 Unison, the public sector trade union, was granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal (“the court”) after the High Court dismissed UNISON’s second challenge to the lawfulness of the system of employment tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal fees introduced in July 2013.
In the first part of our review of the new Consumer Rights Act, Matthew Jackson, pupil at Invictus Chambers considers the revised rights of consumers and traders.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) provides a new code for business to consumer contracts in the United Kingdom. The key provisions came into force for contracts entered into on or after 1st October 2015. The act has two primary effects. The first provides new rights for certain contracts, particularly in relation to the sale of digital goods. Those new provisions will be covered in a future post.
Tuesday saw a success in the long-running battle between the European Union and telecommunications companies over mobile phone roaming charges; a problem that plagues holidaymakers across Europe.
Over the past week we have a number of cases from the Justis Irish Cases series uploaded onto the Justis platform. An overview of these cases can be found below:
Simao Paxi-Cato, barrister at Invictus Chambers, reviews the further guidance provided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal as to application of the public interest test in whistleblowing cases involving allegations of breach of contract.