Month: February 2025

A dire crossroads for migrant victim-survivors

By Dr Adrienne Yong

Whilst the majority of us consider the home a safe and comfortable place, for one in five people aged 16 and over, it represents a place of fear and violence if they are victim-survivors of domestic abuse. However, what is often lost amongst the already devastating facts and figures about domestic abuse is the reality for those victim-survivors who are also immigrants subject to the harsh realities of the UK’s strict immigration laws.

At the end of April 2021, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 came into force, representing a sea change in law around domestic abuse in England & Wales. Before this, governance and legislation on protecting against domestic abuse was fragmented, with domestic abuse undefined in the law. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 sought to address many of these problems. It would have been legitimate cause for optimism about the future of victim-survivors’ rights in England & Wales, if it was not for one significant oversight.

When the Domestic Abuse Bill was being debated by the Government, the problem of migrant victim-survivors’ rights regularly surfaced as a problem demanding urgent attention. It was a key campaign focus of many migrant women’s charities, known as “by-and-for” organisations,  and the subject of many tabled amendments, particularly by the House of Lords.

But why exactly does being an immigrant make the situation of a victim-survivor of domestic abuse any different? It all comes down to the way the law impacts on those who are both at the mercy of an abuser and the strict immigration laws in the UK. The latter is known as the hostile environment policy, which has existed since 2012. For years, victim-survivors of domestic abuse who found themselves also subject to UK immigration law were in a unique position of fear – already fearful of consequences from abusers and the authorities when reporting their experiences of domestic abuse, but also fearful of whether they would risk deportation because of also being precarious migrants.

Continue reading

How involved should the court be in balancing stakeholder interests in insolvency? A spotlight on African emerging economies

By Dr Hamiisi J. Nsubuga

National legal systems have provisions that empower courts, especially, commercial courts to regulate matters related to business and commercial affairs, including insolvency related matters or disputes. These courts make strategic decisions, such as deciding whether a company faced with financial difficulties is worthy of a chance to restructure its debts/capital structures as opposed to being liquidated. However, the role of the court in this context is often either misunderstood or underestimated due to divergent theoretical perspectives on the role that they ought to play in an insolvency setting. In this short blog, I explore how involved should a court be in balancing stakeholder interests in insolvency and debt restructuring proceedings, especially in African emerging economies?

Debates on the role of the court in insolvency settings are dominated by theoretical ideals advanced by two leading insolvency theoretical schools; the traditionalists and proceduralists. These ideals further transcend to other theoretical movements, such as the contractarianism, and communitarianism in informing how such theoretical ideals may influence the role and/or approaches of the courts in balancing stakeholder interests in insolvency and debt restructuring frameworks. This is because, a theory is a factual concept or framework describing a given phenomenon, the way it is, or it ought to. Hence, insolvency law theories provide the basis upon which substantive insolvency laws and policies in different jurisdictions are prescribed or evaluated.

Continue reading

North American Tariff War has Dark Implications for International Trade Law

By Prof. David Collins

The recent announcement of sweeping tariffs by US President Donald Trump on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China has ignited a global trade conflict with far-reaching implications. President Trump’s decision to impose a 25% tariff on most Canadian and Mexican goods, with a 10% tariff on Canadian energy resources, and an additional 10% on Chinese imports, marks a significant departure from the longstanding free trade relationship between the two nations. In response to the US tariff threat, Canada announced retaliatory measures, planning to impose 25% targeted tariffs on $155 billion worth of US imports.

While a temporary reprieve has been granted for both Canada and Mexico, it is not clear that the tariffs will not eventually be imposed, as they have been on China, potentially violating the US’s commitments under international treaties. All four countries, as WTO members, are bound not to raise tariffs beyond their committed levels under Article II of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Article I of GATT further requires countries not to treat imports from different WTO members differently with respect to tariffs. Article 2.4 of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) prevents those three parties from increasing tariffs.

Continue reading

The second UPC FRAND decision in Huawei v Netgear: is it time for a new CJEU referral?

By Prof Enrico Bonadio and Magali Contardi

In another standard essential patents (SEPs) case from the Unified Patent Court (UPC), on 18 December 2024 the Munich Local Division (LD) issued an injunction in favour of Huawei (UPC_CFI_9/2023,  available in German here). The order prohibited Netgear from selling Wi-Fi 6 routers in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Finland, France, and Sweden. Netgear is also required to withdraw the infringing products from the market and hand them over to a court-appointed bailiff for destruction. The ruling was enforceable upon the provision by Huawei (the SEP owner) of partial security, the full amount of which remains confidential (order of the court Lett. M, p.161). Nevertheless, faced with a seven-country injunction, Netgear settled in early January, agreeing to take a license to the WI-Fi 6 standard patents.

The Munich LD decision stems from an infringement claim filed by Huawei before the Munich LD in July 2023. The dispute centered on Huawei’s EP3611989, which relates to the Wi-Fi 6 standard and covers both methods and devices for transmitting and/or receiving information within a wireless local network. The case had been previously reported in this blog here.

In addition to addressing Huawei’s infringement claim, the Munich LD ruled on, and rejected, Netgear’s counterclaim for revocation (§C, ACT_588071/2023-UPC_CFI_9/2023). A parallel dispute between these parties is still pending at the US District Court of California, but it will likely be withdrawn in light of the settlement. Earlier in December 2024, the Munich LD had issued an anti-anti-suit injunction, prohibiting Netgear from pursuing an anti-suit or anti-enforcement application at the US District Court of California (the UPC decision  CNF_791/2024 is available in the German language here).

Continue reading

© 2025 City Law Forum

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Skip to toolbar