- September 14, 2017
Choice of law clauses: when you don’t get (just) the law you bargained for
Certainty and predictability are key considerations for any party entering into a commercial contract, and a key factor in this regard is knowing what law will be applied by a court called on to enforce the contract. Certainty as to the applicable law not only enables parties to anticipate how the contractual terms may be … Continue reading Choice of law clauses: when you don’t get (just) the law you bargained for →
- March 16, 2017
Obtaining the evidence from the United States: section 1782 orders
The US statutory procedure known as “section 1782” can allow a litigant in non-US proceedings to obtain what is tantamount to full US-style discovery from a US based entity, for use in the foreign proceedings. This can be particularly valuable to litigants in jurisdictions that have limited procedures for disclosure of evidence, such as many … Continue reading Obtaining the evidence from the United States: section 1782 orders →
- September 20, 2016
Changes to appeal rights and processes: a step too far?
Amid the currently crowded landscape of reform processes and proposals affecting the civil justice system in England and Wales, one set of reforms, that has perhaps stayed further below the radar than might have been expected, are the proposals aimed at addressing the serious delays being experienced in the Court of Appeal’s Civil Division.
- May 17, 2016
Drafting settlement agreements: do you know what claims you’re releasing?
A crucial part of any agreement recording the settlement of a dispute is the description of the releases being given by one or both parties as part of the settlement. A key issue for the parties to consider is whether the releases should extend to future claims and, in particular, claims that are unknown at … Continue reading Drafting settlement agreements: do you know what claims you’re releasing? →
- November 17, 2015
Legal advice privilege: not just for legal advice
A recent High Court decision has provided reassurance to both lawyers and clients as to the scope of legal advice privilege, after an earlier decision (by a different judge) in the same case had arguably suggested a narrower scope for LAP than had been generally accepted.