The English High Court has permitted two individuals to continue to pursue computer hacking claims against the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain (KOB). This follows an earlier ruling made by the same judge in a claim against the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) where similar conclusions were reached. These significant decisions confirm that individuals have private rights of action against foreign states in such cases. However, it is also important to understand the limitations of these rulings.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Ina Fassbender

For those who have worked through the slow and steady technological changes in the world of litigation in the past two decades, things are about to take a dramatic turn. With the arrival of the already ubiquitous ChatGPT, a mere forerunner to the AI large language models, we can expect, in the near future, the possibilities of how AI will revolutionise commercial dispute resolution are only just becoming possible to conceive.

AI, in the form of relatively rudimentary machine learning algorithms are already widely used to assist with document review and eDiscovery. Their utility in these often time-consuming and tedious tasks is obvious. The ability to automatically associate apparently unrelated documents, identify patterns and accelerate the process of review by providing a positive feedback review loop has dramatically increased the amount of progress that can be made and level of certainty that can be achieved on disclosure projects in a given time.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Dinuka Liyanawatte

Duty calls

For all its undoubted legal and practical significance, the recent Court of Appeal case of Ashraf v Lester Dominic and others  is not a great advertisement for the human condition.

It involves not just one but two property frauds, both suffered by an unfortunate gentleman called Mr Ul Haq. (Things did not get better for Mr Ul Haq – he passed away shortly afterwards, presumably with a very low view of his fellow man, and the task of advancing the litigation fell to his executrix, a Ms Ashraf.) The property frauds both took place in the context of the sale of a property to a Mr Attarian.

The first thing that happened was that money advanced by Mr Attarian’s lender (the Bank) to complete the purchase was appropriated by an employee of a firm of solicitors (which was acting for both Mr Ul Haq and Mr Attarian).

Continue reading