REUTERS | Ognen Teofilovski

Chairing a conference has lots of challenges, a number of which can be lost on delegates who attend only for the hours set out in the programme. The timetable tends to follow a set formula: coffee and light breakfast on arrival, an introduction by whoever is chairing the conference to cover housekeeping (no fire drill is planned so if it goes off, it’s for real, mobile phones on silent please, questions at the end, don’t forget to fill in your feedback forms for CPD points and do come back next year), followed by a welcome for the keynote speaker. Thereafter, the conference progresses using the tried and tested formula: speeches, panel session, coffee, speeches, questions, lunch, speeches, panel session, questions, round-up from the chair, run for the train, or take refuge in the pub to reflect on how rewarding the day has or has not been. Continue reading

REUTERS | Umit Bektas

It is axiomatic that the question of jurisdiction is fundamental to all litigation, notwithstanding the fact that in many cases it is never raised or considered by the parties. Where it is in issue, it can dominate the time and resources of the parties before a single other point has been addressed. That was the situation in Akçil and others v Koza Ltd and another, in which case the Supreme Court’s determination ended over three years of litigation on a jurisdictional issue concerning the appropriate construction of Article 24(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) (the Recast Brussels Regulation). Continue reading

REUTERS | Alexander Kuznetsov

It is undeniable that dealing with multiple claimants is a challenge. One of those challenges is deciding how to structure the litigation. Do you flood the court and the defendant(s) with separate claim forms for each claimant? Do you choose a claimant who shares the same interests as others in the group to act as a representative? What about bringing a test case? Continue reading

REUTERS | Vasily Fedosenko

Charging interest on disbursements recovered from a defendant at the successful conclusion of a case (assuming disbursements paid by solicitors for the claimant)

There is an overlap between this heading and the heading of this blog (and that in Part 1), in that the indemnity principle potentially applies, and the ability to recover costs from a defendant may depend upon the terms of the retainer. Continue reading

REUTERS | Yuriko Nakao

It is sometimes said that a judgment is written for the losing party; all that the winning party cares about is that it has won. However, a recent Court of Appeal decision is a salutary reminder that when a judgment is not carefully written, the failure to give adequate reasons for the conclusions may lead to a retrial, and so give the losing party a second bite at the cherry. All litigants, winners and losers, should take note. Continue reading

REUTERS | Eric Gaillard

Who (if anyone) is liable when an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered trading / investment system causes substantial losses for an investor? The English courts are currently considering this question for the first time in the case of Tyndaris v VWM, which is due for trial next year. Continue reading

REUTERS | Lisi Niesner

It is no secret that applying for litigation funding can be arduous and time consuming. On the one hand, it’s no surprise that it might take some time to convince a funder to invest potentially millions of pounds in the outcome of a dispute. On the other hand, it can be incredibly frustrating when an application takes months or even years for the funder to give a definitive decision, and the answer may still be “no”. Continue reading