- January 11, 2023
Commercial Court restrains proceedings issued in EU member state in breach of English jurisdiction clause
In a post-Brexit first, the Commercial Court has granted an anti-suit injunction (ASI) in relation to proceedings issued in an EU member state. Ebury Partners Belgium SA/NV v (1) Technical Touch BV; and (2) Jan Berthels also provides a useful refresher on the key principles relating to the incorporation of standalone terms into a contract.
- July 13, 2022
What is in a name? Is the identity of those communicating with solicitors protected by the rules of litigation privilege?
In Loreley Financing (Jersey) No 30 Ltd v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd, Mr Justice Robin Knowles QC provides a helpful two-part test to clarify whether the identity of those providing instructions to solicitors can be covered by litigation privilege.
- March 23, 2022
The privilege is mine? Court offers guidance on litigation privilege
In Kyla Shipping Co Ltd and another v Freight Trading Ltd and others, Charles Hollander QC (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) provides helpful guidance on when litigation privilege applies – and the circumstances in which it may be waived.
- January 4, 2022
Sweet relief: Court of Appeal grants relief from sanctions in the absence of a formal application
CPR 3.8 provides that any sanction arising from a litigant’s failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order will have effect “unless the party in default applies for and obtains relief from the sanction”. In Boodia v Yatsyna, the Court of Appeal confirmed that this does not fetter the court’s ability to grant … Continue reading Sweet relief: Court of Appeal grants relief from sanctions in the absence of a formal application →
- September 29, 2021
The buck stops where? Relevance of the defendant’s funding arrangements to an application for security for costs
The court may grant an order for security for costs if a two-part test is satisfied. First, at least one of the gateway conditions listed at CPR 25.13(2) must apply. Secondly, it must be just for the court to make the order in all the circumstances of the case (CPR 25.13(1)(a)). In Heathfield International LLC … Continue reading The buck stops where? Relevance of the defendant’s funding arrangements to an application for security for costs →
- July 15, 2021
A sense of purpose: UK Supreme Court clarifies SAAMCO principles
The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has provided welcome clarification on the scope of the duty assumed by a professional adviser. The distinction between information and advice drawn by Lord Hoffmann in South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd (SAAMCO) has been dispensed with in favour of a more practical examination of the purpose … Continue reading A sense of purpose: UK Supreme Court clarifies SAAMCO principles →
- April 13, 2021
The winner takes it all? Court of Appeal overturns “no order as to costs” in favour of “clear winner”
In Global Energy Horizons Corporation v Gray [2021] EWCA Civ 123, the Court of Appeal demonstrated the circumstances in which an appellate court will overturn costs decisions made by judges below. Disputes over who is substantially the winner at the end of litigation are not uncommon and judges regularly exercise their discretion, under CPR 44, … Continue reading The winner takes it all? Court of Appeal overturns “no order as to costs” in favour of “clear winner” →
- December 31, 2020
Collateral value: use of documents disclosed under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction in other proceedings
Under CPR 31.22, a party to whom a document has been disclosed may only use it for the purpose of the proceedings in which it has been disclosed. There are some limited exceptions to this, the most important (for our purposes) being that the court may grant permission for the disclosure to be used for … Continue reading Collateral value: use of documents disclosed under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction in other proceedings →
- September 23, 2020
Jockeying for position: determining forum conveniens
In Traxys Europe SA v Sodexmines Nigeria Limited and Basem El Ali, Teare J provided helpful guidance on how the court will balance the burden of proof and assess the usual competing factors when determining the forum conveniens for a claim. The court also considered how exclusive jurisdiction clauses may apply to a contracting party’s … Continue reading Jockeying for position: determining forum conveniens →
- June 11, 2020
A need to engage: recent court rulings remind litigants of the need to explore ADR
Pursuant to CPR 44.2, the court may exercise its discretion to order one party to a claim to pay the costs incurred by another. While the general rule is that “the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party”, the court may depart from this if it so chooses.
- January 23, 2020
Security for costs: delay isn’t always fatal
A balancing act Under CPR 25.13, the court may grant an order for security for costs if a two part test is satisfied. First, at least one of the gateway conditions listed at CPR 25.13(2) must apply. Secondly, it must be just for the court to make the order in all the circumstances of the … Continue reading Security for costs: delay isn’t always fatal →