REUTERS | Eric Vida
April 21, 2016

An interview with Mr Justice Birss: part 3/3: crystal-ball gazing

I was delighted to have the chance to put a few questions to Sir Colin Birss, judge of the High Court Chancery Division and nominated judge of the Patents Court.

In part 1 of my interview with Sir Colin, he talked about his career and interests. In part 2, he gave some perspectives on current developments in litigation procedure, notably highlighting potential benefits of the Shorter and Flexible Trials Pilot Schemes operating in the Rolls Building courts until 30 September 2017. Finally, in part 3, Sir Colin considers what the future might hold for civil litigation in England and Wales. Continue reading →

REUTERS |
April 21, 2016

To notify or not to notify: the impact of contact terms on common law rights to terminate

In Vinergy International (PVT) Ltd v Richmond Mercantile Ltd FZC, Teare J held that the notice requirements contained in the termination provisions of a master supply agreement (MSA) did not apply to an innocent party’s exercise of its common law right to terminate the agreement by accepting the other party’s repudiatory breach. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Hummingbird
April 20, 2016

Contingency fees: rare High Court guidance with implications for DBAs?

Contingency fee agreements arise where the solicitor agrees with the client to be paid a percentage share of any damages, rather than being paid on an hourly rate basis (whether conditional or not). They have long been lawful in non-contentious business, and have been permitted in contentious business since the introduction of the Damages Based Agreement Regulations 2013 as part of the Jackson reforms. However, it has been widely commented that those regulations have failed, intentionally or otherwise, to stimulate the wider use of contingency fee agreements.

Contingency fee agreements are commonly used in some very specific categories of work, such as employment tribunals and criminal injuries compensation scheme claims, but outside that they remain relatively little used. As a result, there is little guidance on how the courts will approach their use. Spencer J’s judgment in the case of Bolt Burdon v Tariq on 13 April 2016 is one of the few recent decisions which considers the use of contingency fee agreements. As such, it merits close consideration for anyone contemplating using such an agreement. Continue reading →