Practical Law

The recent judgment in Osbourne v Persons Unknown and another adds to the growing body of English case law on cryptoasset fraud and the willingness of the courts to tackle novel questions posed by such cases. Osbourne sets a precedent as the first judgment to authorise service solely by non-fungible token (NFT). It is also … Continue reading Cryptoasset fraud poses novel questions on jurisdiction and service of proceedings →

Two recent decisions of the High Court, in actions involving high-profile parties, shine a spotlight on the duties of both parties and their legal representatives when it comes to disclosure.

The potential for estoppel to arise based on the conduct of a party in litigation is well established in the law of England and Wales. The courts acknowledge that a party cannot change its position adopted in previous proceedings and then expect the court not to hold that party to its previous conduct.

In Ramilos Ltd v Buyanovsky, it was held that the statutory regime of the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) limits the courts’ otherwise inherent jurisdiction to make a Norwich Pharmacal order when it comes to obtaining evidence in aid of foreign proceedings. This restriction, however, is one that in our … Continue reading To disclose or not to disclose: the Ramilos restriction on the courts’ Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction in aid of foreign bank proceedings →

The extent to which a non-party may obtain access to documents on the court file, and what those documents comprise, has been the subject of recent judicial scrutiny, notably the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring. In The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators v B and others, the High Court was … Continue reading Access all areas? When the “interests of justice” may permit a non-party access to arbitration documents →

In Griffin Underwriting Ltd v Varouxakis (Free Goddess), the parties agreed a litigation moratorium following the filing by the defendant of an acknowledgment of service indicating that he intended to contest jurisdiction. At the time of entering the moratorium, the defendant had one day left in which to bring his challenge.