February 2025 Legal Insights and Updates

We are pleased to share with you the latest insights from our practice and developments across the ever-evolving legal landscape. This edition provides updates on key legal trends, recent legislative changes and highlights from ongoing projects.

We hope this is both useful and of interest to you and your colleagues.

Kind regards
Belgravia Law

LEGAL UPDATES

The Arbitration Act 2025 Receives Royal Assent

The Arbitration Act 2025 officially received Royal Assent on 24 February 2025, marking the completion of its passage through Parliament. This new Act closely follows the recommendations made by the Law Commission in response to a government request to review the Arbitration Act 1996 and ensure its continued relevance in promoting the UK as a leading hub for international commercial arbitration.

The Law Commission's review, following a consultation period, culminated in the publication of its recommendations in September 2023. These proposed amendments aim to enhance the arbitration framework, ensuring it remains effective and competitive on the global stage.

Sir Peter Fraser, Chair of the Law Commission, commented on the significance of the Bill’s passage:

"The Arbitration Act 2025 marks a pivotal step in advancing the UK’s arbitration landscape. By enacting the Law Commission’s recommendations, we are not only strengthening the arbitration framework but also reaffirming the UK’s status as the premier jurisdiction for commercial arbitration. This will ensure the UK remains a top destination for international arbitration."

Bar Council’s Response to the New Act

The Bar Council has also expressed its support for the passing of the Arbitration Bill 2025. The updated Act aligns with the Law Commission’s recommendations and brings welcome clarity to the existing framework, further cementing the UK’s position as a global leader in arbitration.

According to the Law Commission, there are over 5,000 domestic and international arbitrations annually in England and Wales, generating £2.5 billion in fees. This underlines the significant economic contribution of arbitration to the British legal system.

Barbara Mills KC, Chair of the Bar Council, highlighted the importance of the new legislation:

"We welcome the Arbitration Act 2025, which will further enhance the UK’s standing as a leading centre for arbitration. This industry is worth billions to the British economy. In particular, we value the clarity the new Act provides regarding the law applicable to arbitration agreements, which we anticipate will increase the number of disputes arbitrated in England and Wales.

Additionally, the Act strengthens the role of courts in supporting arbitration and allows for the summary dismissal of meritless claims, increasing efficiency in arbitral proceedings … The modernisation of the UK’s arbitration framework ensures the country remains competitive in the international arbitration market.”

Further information about the Law Commission’s arbitration law reform project, including their recommendations, can be found on the project page.

LEGAL UPDATES

Ordinarily Resident for the Purpose of a Bankruptcy Petition?

In the recent case of Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud [2025] EWHC 85 (Ch), the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order against Prince Hussam Bin Saud, citing a lack of evidence to confirm that he had a place of residence in England and Wales within the relevant period under section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986”). This case clarifies the interpretation of residence requirements for bankruptcy petitions.

Case Background

The case stemmed from various arbitration awards, where a bankruptcy petition was presented against Prince Hussam Bin Saud, a prominent figure in Saudi Arabia. The petitioners contended Prince Hussam was living in England and Wales, relying on his historical residence at York House in London, where he stayed during his time at the London School of Economics in the 1980s. The properties in question were said to be purchased with the ongoing support of Prince Hussam's family.

However, following significant changes to his role in Saudi Arabia, including his appointment as Emir of Al Bahah and his increased security requirements, Prince Hussam had not resided in the UK during the relevant period. The petitioner, despite alleging Prince Hussam’s continuing use of properties in London, failed to demonstrate that Prince Hussam had maintained a residence in the jurisdiction during the three-year period before the petition was presented.

Court’s Decision

The court considered a variety of factors in determining whether Prince Hussam had a place of residence in the UK. These included his historical use of York House, the purpose of the properties, the presence of personal items, his mother's ongoing commitment to providing accommodation and the lack of his physical presence in the jurisdiction during the relevant period. Despite these factors, the court found that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to establish that Prince Hussam had a place of residence at the time the petition was filed.

The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that once an individual is found to have had a residence, they must demonstrate abandonment to no longer be considered a resident. Instead, the court emphasised that the question of residence is one of "fact and degree", dependent on the totality of the evidence and concluded that Prince Hussam’s lifestyle and absence from the jurisdiction during the relevant period meant that he did not have a residence in England and Wales for the purposes of the IA 1986.

Practical Implications

This case highlights the jurisdictional tests for a creditor’s bankruptcy petition under the IA 1986, focusing specifically on the requirement of having a place of residence in the jurisdiction within the three years prior to the petition’s presentation. The court set out a five-part test to determine whether the debtor had a place of residence, emphasising the importance of permanence, continuity and the debtor's intention.

The ruling reinforces that jurisdiction in such cases is not automatic, even when an individual has occupied property in the past. The key question is whether there is sufficient evidence of a "place of residence" during the relevant period, which requires more than just property ownership or access. The court’s decision in this case sets a clear threshold for establishing jurisdiction based on residence.

Conclusion

This case serves as an important reminder of the complexities involved in determining jurisdiction for bankruptcy petitions, especially when the debtor’s residence is in question. It reinforces the need for petitioners to provide clear evidence of a debtor’s residence during the relevant period. The court’s decision to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds highlights the careful consideration required when interpreting "residence" under the IA 1986.

LEGAL UPDATES

Unsuccessful Application to Disapply Usual Costs Rule on Discontinuance Based on Unreasonable Conduct by Third Party

In BB and others v Khayyat and others [2025] EWHC 379 (KB), the High Court dismissed an application by four claimants (“C”) under CPR 38.6 to disapply the usual costs order following the discontinuance of their claim. The court considered the principles outlined in Brookes v HSBC Bank plc [2011] EWCA Civ 354 and the extent of the court's discretion to depart from the costs presumption under CPR 38.6.

Case Background

C argued that agents of the state of Qatar had conspired to pressure them into discontinuing their claims, justifying the disapplication of the usual costs order. While C did not allege that the defendant bank (“D”) was directly involved in this conspiracy, they contended that the court should depart from the usual rule, despite the absence of evidence proving unreasonable conduct by D. C relied on the sixth principle from Brookes, which allows for departure from the usual costs rule in cases where unreasonable conduct by the defendant has influenced the discontinuance.

C further cited Arcadia Group Ltd and others v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 223 (QB), arguing that the principle in Brookes did not preclude consideration of third-party conduct.

Court’s Decision

The court rejected C's application, finding no rule requiring a discontinuing claimant to show that a change in circumstances was directly caused by the defendant's unreasonable conduct. The court emphasised that the claimant must meet the civil standard of proof, establishing their case on the balance of probabilities.

The court also dismissed C’s argument that the reference to "cogent reasons" in Brookes merely required the claimant to show that their case for third-party conduct was "more than fanciful". C’s evidence failed to meet the required standard of proof and the court found it inappropriate to draw conclusions based on allegations of conduct by a party not present in the proceedings. The fact that D had not refuted C’s allegations was irrelevant.

As a result, the court upheld the presumptive costs rule and refused to disapply the usual costs order following discontinuance.

LEGAL UPDATES

Contract Wording Prohibited Assignment & Declaration of Trust

In Goldkorn v MPA (Construction Consultants) Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 385 (TCC), Jonathan Acton Davis KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, ruled that neither a purported assignment nor a declaration of trust entitled the beneficiary to pursue a professional consultant for alleged negligence. The court addressed the issue of whether the claimant had a right to bring a claim against the consultant under the terms of the contract.

Case Background

Kazu, the client, engaged MPA as its project manager for a development project in London. Clause 16.2 of the appointment agreement outlined that the benefit of the appointment could be assigned by the client to a person providing finance or refinance for the project or to any person acquiring the client's interest in the project. However, the client later entered liquidation and granted a deed of assignment to Mr Goldkorn, the claimant, giving him the right to pursue the consultant for negligence. Subsequently, the client executed a declaration of trust in favour of the claimant, which permitted the claimant to claim in his own name but prohibited claims in the trustee’s name.

Court’s Decision

The court determined that the claimant had no title to bring the claim, finding that:

Assignment of Rights: The claimant was not a permitted assignee under the terms of Clause 16.2, as he did not acquire the client’s “interest in the project” which referred specifically to an interest in the construction works themselves.
Prohibition Against Assignment: Clause 16.2’s prohibition against assignment extended to accrued rights of action, including claims in both contract and tort.
Trust: The claimant could not pursue the claim as a beneficiary under the trust. The court referred to Clause 18.2, which stated that only the client and its permitted assignees could enforce the terms of the appointment. Since the claimant was neither the client nor a permitted assignee, he could not take action to enforce the appointment.

Practical Implications

This ruling may offer reassurance to consultants and contractors that contract wording designed to restrict assignment is effective, particularly in preventing claims by third parties. The judgment emphasises the importance of carefully considering the scope of contractual wording and its impact on enforcing rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Parties may now reassess how they phrase such provisions to ensure their primary intention—preventing third parties from bringing claims—is properly captured.

LEGAL UPDATES

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of an Account of Profits

In a landmark decision, Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17, the Supreme Court provided important clarification on the scope of an account of profits, confirming that a defendant can only be required to account for profits they have personally received through their wrongdoing. This decision marks a significant development in this area, particularly in cases involving accessory liability and joint liability for wrongful conduct.

The Concept of an Account of Profits

The account of profits remedy is rooted in equity and is intended to deter wrongdoers from retaining ill-gotten gains. Unlike a compensation remedy, which seeks to make the victim whole by compensating for their losses, an account of profits seeks to strip the wrongdoer of any benefit derived from their misconduct. The remedy may be available in cases involving fiduciary breaches, intellectual property infringement and in rare cases of breach of contract, as seen in Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268.

In cases where a person is not directly responsible for wrongdoing but has dishonestly assisted or received profits from the wrongful act, the remedy of an account of profits can also apply. Previous cases, such as Novoship (UK) Ltd v Mikhaylyuk [2014] EWCA Civ 908, clarified that dishonest assistants or those who knowingly receive ill-gotten profits could be held accountable. However, the extent of the profits they were required to account for remained uncertain, particularly in relation to whether they could be held liable for profits made by others involved in the wrongdoing.

The Ahmed Case and Its Implications

The case of Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed revolved around trademark infringement and passing off claims against two companies and their directors, the Ahmeds. The court had previously found the companies liable for infringement and the Ahmeds jointly and severally liable with the companies. Lifestyle sought an account of profits from the Ahmeds, arguing they should account for all the profits made by the companies as a result of the wrongful conduct.

However, the trial judge ruled that the Ahmeds could only be ordered to account for the profits they had personally received, which included a portion of their salaries and a loan made by one of the companies to Mr Ahmed. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Both sides then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the central issue was whether the Ahmeds could be required to account for the profits made by the companies.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court confirmed the trial judge's decision that the Ahmeds could only be required to account for profits personally received by them. The Court emphasised that the nature of the remedy of an account of profits is to disgorge the defendant’s personal gain, not to penalise them for profits made by others, such as the company they were involved with. As the court noted, ordering a defendant to account for someone else’s profits would amount to a penalty rather than disgorgement of gain.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court distinguished between personal profits and those made by a company in which the defendant has an interest. Simply having an interest in a company does not make the profits of that company the defendant's personal profits. The claimant must demonstrate that the profits flowed directly from the company to the defendant personally, such as through dividends or other forms of direct benefit.

The court also clarified that loans and salaries paid to the defendant by the company were not profits unless it could be shown that the loan was interest-free or at a below-market rate, or that the salary was a disguised form of profit extraction. In this case, the trial judge had not made any such findings regarding the loan or salaries and thus the Ahmeds could not be held liable for those amounts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed provides vital clarification on the scope of the account of profits remedy. It reinforces the principle that defendants can only be required to account for profits they have personally received as a result of their wrongdoing, not for profits made by others involved in the misconduct. The judgment also highlights the need for clear evidence that profits have flowed directly to the defendant personally before they can be held liable for those profits. This decision is an important development in the law of equity, particularly in cases involving accessory liability and corporate structures, and offers valuable guidance on the application of the account of profits remedy moving forward.

LEGAL UPDATES

The Expanding Role of Mediation: High Court Champions Compulsory ADR in Dispute Resolution

Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) continues to gain prominence in the UK legal landscape, as highlighted by the High Court's recent decision in DKH Retail Ltd and others v City Football Group Ltd [2024] EWHC 3231 (Ch). This case marks a key moment in the growing importance of ADR, with the court mandating mediation shortly before trial to encourage the resolution of a trademark dispute. The decision illustrates a broader trend towards prioritising ADR to mitigate the time, costs and procedural burdens traditionally associated with litigation.

The Path to Compulsory ADR

The dispute in DKH Retail Ltd centred around a trademark conflict between the claimant, Superdry, and the defendant, City Football Group, related to branding on promotional sportswear bearing the terms “Super” and “Dry”. The claimants contended that the branding could confuse consumers by resembling Superdry's trademark. During the pre-trial review, the claimants requested that the court mandate both parties to engage in mediation, arguing that the case's manageable complexity made mediation an effective means of reducing legal costs.

Despite opposition from the defendants, who questioned the timing and likelihood of settlement, Judge Miles exercised his discretion to order mediation. He noted that even when parties hold firm positions, structured, face-to-face negotiations often create opportunities for progress. Mediation, he observed, could help "unlock even the most difficult disputes" through focused and efficient communication.

Judicial Support and Legal Developments

The ruling in DKH Retail Ltd builds on earlier cases, including the Court of Appeal's decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416. The Court of Appeal confirmed that judges have the authority to pause proceedings and compel ADR when it is proportionate and does not infringe on the right to a fair trial. This judgment, supported by both UK legal principles and pre-Brexit European case law, strengthens the position of ADR in the dispute resolution process.

In addition to judicial support, recent changes to the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) further promote ADR. Amendments made in October 2024 introduced significant updates, including:

CPR 1 (Overriding Objective): Encouraging ADR is now an integral part of the court's overriding objective.
CPR 1.4 (Court’s Duty to Manage Cases): Judges are now required to consider facilitating ADR as part of active case management.
CPR 28 (Fast and Intermediate Track): Courts must assess whether ADR should be directed in fast-track and intermediate-track cases.
CPR 44 (Costs): Judges can impose cost sanctions on parties who unreasonably refuse to engage in ADR or fail to comply with ADR orders.

A New Era in Dispute Resolution

The cases of DKH Retail Ltd and Churchill, along with the recent updates to the CPR, signal a significant shift in how commercial disputes are managed in the UK. Courts are increasingly encouraging, and sometimes compelling, parties to mediate in order to alleviate the strains of litigation. The success of the mediation in DKH Retail Ltd underscores the effectiveness of this approach.

This growing trend reflects the judiciary's commitment to resolving disputes at an early stage through negotiation rather than prolonged court proceedings. By promoting dialogue over confrontation, courts aim to reduce pressure on court resources and facilitate fair, efficient and cost-effective resolutions. For businesses, this shift means that incorporating ADR, particularly mediation, into their dispute management strategies is becoming essential.

Conclusion

The transformation highlighted by these developments marks a broader cultural shift within the legal profession - a shift from adversarial litigation towards cooperation and consensus-building. The future of commercial dispute resolution is likely to see negotiation playing a central role, as ADR becomes increasingly embedded in legal practice.

LEGAL UPDATES

Professor Maxi Scherer Appointed as Next President of the LCIA Court

The London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) has announced that Professor Maxi Scherer will become the next President of the LCIA Court, effective 9 May 2025. Currently serving as Vice President, Prof Scherer will succeed Paula Hodges KC. This appointment marks an important milestone as the LCIA continues to enhance its global presence, with recent statistics showing that 96% of its 2023 cases were international and 79% did not involve any UK-based parties.

The LCIA's latest Costs and Duration Analysis highlights the institution’s cost-effectiveness, especially in high-value disputes. Under Paula Hodges KC's leadership, the LCIA successfully administered cases involving parties from 161 jurisdictions across 70 seats of arbitration and governed by 99 substantive laws. The transition to Professor Scherer as President underscores the LCIA's ongoing commitment to providing efficient and impartial arbitration services on the global stage.

Legal Updates From Different Jurisdictions

Norway and Denmark Withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)

The Portuguese Republic, acting as the depositary of the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”) and the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects (“PEEREA”), has confirmed the receipt of notifications from both Norway and Denmark regarding their decisions to withdraw from the ECT and PEEREA.

Norway has notified the depositary of its decision not to become a contracting party to the ECT and PEEREA, while Denmark’s withdrawal will take effect on 4 September 2025. Under Article 47(3) of the ECT, investments covered by the Treaty at the time of each country’s withdrawal will continue to receive protection for 20 years from the respective date of withdrawal.

This development marks a significant shift in the participation of European countries in the ECT, which is designed to promote energy cooperation and protect investments in the energy sector.

Legal News

U.S. Government Announces New Sanctions and Expands Export Controls on Russia and Belarus

Case Law Digest Series

Case Digest: General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd v Libya [2025] EWCA Civ 134

In General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd v Libya [2025] EWCA Civ 134, the court dismissed Libya’s appeal against a decision that it had consented to the enforcement of an arbitration award under the State Immunity Act 1978, specifically s.13(3). The case involved a supply agreement where the arbitration clause stated that the award would be "final, binding and wholly enforceable". The court ruled that this language sufficiently expressed Libya’s consent for the award to be enforced against its assets. The judgment clarified that the State Immunity Act allows for the enforcement of arbitration awards when a state’s agreement explicitly reflects consent, even without the need for additional wording or specific references to enforcement.

Download PDF

Legal News

U.S. Government Announces New Sanctions and Expands Export Controls on Russia and Belarus

Case Law Digest Series

Case Digest: Bunge S.A. v Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2025] EWHC 168 (Comm)

The case involved an appeal by the claimant, owners of a vessel, against an arbitration award made in favour of the defendant, charterers, concerning the off-hire period following the crew’s COVID-19 diagnosis. The issue revolved around whether the vessel was off-hire under the terms of the charterparty, specifically regarding the application of the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause for Time Charter Parties 2015, which had been incorporated into the charterparty and other clauses addressing quarantine and crew illness.

Download PDF

Firm News

Belgravia Law’s Participation in “The Great Debate: The Impact of AI on Construction” on 5 February 2025

Belgravia Law is pleased to announce its participation in “The Great Debate – The Impact of AI on Construction,” a significant event on 5 February 2025. The debate was chaired by esteemed High Court Judge Mrs Justice Jefford, featuring expert panellists Marion Smith KC of 39 Essex Chambers, Martha Tsigkari from Foster + Partners and Ankura experts Nate Huber-Fliflet and Tom Francis. This event was a great opportunity to explore the evolving role of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the construction industry, particularly its influence on dispute resolution and project efficiency.

Key discussion points will include:

The evolution of AI in live construction projects and its role in resolving disputes.
How AI is enhancing efficiency and productivity in construction projects.
Innovative uses of AI in formulating claims, expert opinions and legal arguments, along with the ethical considerations these applications raise.
The increasing role of AI in formal tribunals and courts and its potential future integration into judicial processes.

As AI technologies continue to shape the design and engineering of buildings with remarkable speed and accuracy, this debate will examine their impact on the entire construction lifecycle—from initial concept to dispute resolution.

Artificial Intelligence Hub

Key Deadlines for the EU Artificial Intelligence Act in 2025: A Guide for Businesses

The European Union's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act represents a significant step towards the responsible development and deployment of AI technologies across Europe. Businesses involved in AI within the EU must prepare for several key deadlines in 2025, each with specific obligations to ensure compliance with the new regulatory framework.

Key Deadlines for the EU AI Act

The first important deadline was on 2 February 2025, when prohibitions on AI systems identified as presenting "unacceptable risks" came into force. These prohibitions target AI systems that exploit vulnerabilities in specific groups, use subliminal techniques, or are applied for social scoring. Businesses should immediately review their AI systems to ensure they do not involve these prohibited practices. Non-compliance could lead to significant penalties, including fines of up to €35 million or 7% of annual revenue.

The next crucial date is 2 May 2025, when the AI Office will take responsibility for supporting the creation of codes of practice for providers of general-purpose AI models. These codes are essential for businesses in the AI sector to comply with the Act’s requirements. If these codes are not finalised by 2 August 2025 or are found to be insufficient, the European Commission may step in to establish uniform rules for AI providers. It is critical for businesses to participate in or support the creation of these codes to avoid regulatory intervention.

Finally, on 2 August 2025, the obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models will officially take effect. These obligations include technical documentation requirements, ensuring compliance with copyright laws and increasing transparency around the data used for training AI systems. In addition to these technical requirements, Member States will begin enforcing rules regarding the notification of authorities, penalties and administrative fines. Providers must prepare to comply with these new requirements to avoid enforcement actions.

Artificial Intelligence Hub

The EU AI Act Hits a Key Milestone: What Businesses Need to Know

On 2 February 2025, the EU AI Act reached a significant milestone. This moment signifies a broader commitment to responsible AI development throughout Europe. The implementation of this regulatory framework will have wide-reaching implications for businesses utilising AI in their operations.

One of the most pressing compliance areas is the elimination of prohibited AI practices from 2 February 2025. These practices include:

Subliminal or manipulative techniques
Exploitation of vulnerabilities (such as age, disability, or social/economic situation)
Social scoring that leads to detrimental treatment
Predictive policing and facial recognition databases
Emotion inference in workplaces or educational institutions (except for medical or safety reasons)
Biometric categorisation to infer characteristics
Real-time biometric identification systems in public spaces for law enforcement (except for targeted searches or preventing imminent threats)

In addition to compliance with prohibited practices, businesses should focus on enhancing AI knowledge within their organisation. Whether a business is implementing high-risk AI systems or integrating AI into its day-to-day operations, it is crucial to ensure that staff are well-versed in the ethical and practical implications of AI. This includes understanding the regulations that govern AI deployment and how these regulations contribute to the responsible use of AI.

Conclusion: A Call for Responsible AI Development

The milestones set by the EU AI Act in 2025 underscore the importance of compliance with new regulatory standards in AI. By meeting these deadlines and ensuring compliance, businesses not only meet their legal obligations but also contribute to the ethical and responsible use of AI. In doing so, they help foster trust among users and stakeholders, positioning themselves as leaders in an increasingly AI-driven world.

Artificial Intelligence Hub

AI Action Summit 2025: A Landmark Event for the Future of Artificial Intelligence

The AI Action Summit, hosted in Paris on February 10-11, 2025, stands as a pivotal moment for the global AI community. This international gathering aimed to position France and Europe as key players in the AI space, competing with the United States and China. With leaders from the worlds of politics, technology and business in attendance, the summit provided an important platform for discussing the future of AI.

Key Highlights of the Summit

The first two days of the summit were dedicated to scientific discussions at Saclay Plateau, followed by cultural events in Paris to engage the public. The official proceedings began at the Grand Palais, where heads of state and tech leaders gathered for in-depth discussions. The timing of this summit is crucial, coming on the heels of significant global AI announcements, including the United States $500 billion Stargate plan and China's introduction of DeepSeek, a new AI system rivalling ChatGPT at a lower cost.

Co-chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the summit fostered a global conversation on AI beyond the US and China, with a focus on giving Europe and other countries a voice in AI governance.

Grand Palais: The Heart of the Summit

The Grand Palais served as the hub for key discussions and presentations on AI’s role in various sectors, including its implications for work, cybersecurity, governance and societal impact. Notable participants in the summit include Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI), Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google) and several other tech leaders from companies like Microsoft, Google DeepMind and Hugging Face. The event will also showcase the contributions of French startups such as Dataiku, Doctolib and Alan.

A Global Conversation on Sustainable AI

As the summit progressed, discussions turned to a global charter for sustainable AI, a proposal that could resemble a climate COP but for the AI sector. This initiative aims to bridge the growing divide between AI leaders and the broader international community, ensuring that all nations are included in the future development of AI technologies.

The Summit’s Legacy: Will It Be a Flash in the Pan?

As the summit drew to a close, questions linger about its long-term impact. However, with early commitments from major players like Mistral AI and Kyutai, as well as political promises for new data centers in France, there is hope that this event will yield meaningful outcomes and contribute to the responsible growth of AI on the global stage.

This summit underscores the growing importance of AI in shaping our future, highlighting the need for international cooperation and regulation to ensure its ethical and equitable development.

Artificial Intelligence Hub

UK Government Releases AI Playbook for Civil Servants

The Government Digital Service (“GDS”) has unveiled an AI Playbook aimed at guiding UK government officials in the responsible use of AI technologies. This playbook builds on the Generative AI Framework introduced in January 2024 and outlines 10 key principles for civil servants to follow when deploying AI in government settings.

UK Government Digital Service Releases AI Playbook for Civil Servants

The GDS has introduced a new AI Playbook for the UK Government, building on the Generative AI Framework published in January 2024. This playbook is designed to guide civil servants in the safe, responsible and effective use of AI technologies within government organisations.

The playbook outlines 10 core principles that civil servants must follow when utilising AI, ensuring that AI is used lawfully, securely and with transparency. It covers various AI technologies, providing detailed guidance on AI capabilities, limitations, risks and practical instructions for selecting, procuring and implementing AI systems.

The key principles include:

Understanding AI and its limitations: Civil servants should have a clear understanding of AI capabilities and know where it might fall short.
Lawful, ethical and responsible use of AI: AI technologies should always be used within legal and ethical boundaries.
Secure use of AI: Ensuring that AI systems are used securely and without risk to data integrity or privacy.
Meaningful human control: There must be appropriate human oversight at every stage of AI use.
Managing the AI lifecycle: Understanding the full lifecycle of AI, from development through to decommissioning.
Using the right tool for the job: AI should be applied where it adds value, using the most appropriate solution for each specific task.
Openness and collaboration: Civil servants should collaborate with others and be transparent in their use of AI.
Engagement with commercial colleagues: Involving commercial teams from the start to ensure the right solutions are chosen.
Skills and expertise: Ensuring that staff have the necessary skills to implement and use AI effectively.
Adherence to organisational policies: The AI playbook should complement existing organisational policies, with appropriate assurance mechanisms in place.

This updated guidance is intended to support civil servants and government employees in harnessing AI technologies in a way that is both effective and secure. The AI Playbook is available in both digital and print formats, ensuring it is easily accessible for those involved in AI projects within the public sector.

Artificial Intelligence Hub

FAQs SERIES: Arbitration Proceedings Increasingly Adopting AI Tools

Staying in Touch

For all enquiries please write to: contact@belgravia.law.

Download this newsletter in PDF