In his recent Mustill Lecture, Jackson LJ delivered a speech arguing forcefully against any further continuation of the “insolvency carve-out” under which insolvency practitioners (IPs), and the insolvent companies in which they hold office, may continue to recover CFA uplifts and ATE insurance premiums from unsuccessful defendants. Continue reading
The Court of Appeal, in Mishcon de Reya v Caliendo, dismissed an appeal against an order granting the respondents relief from sanctions (pursuant to CPR 3.9) imposed under the pre-April 2013 costs provisions relating to failures to serve notices of funding arrangements. The Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the judge’s exercise of his discretion to grant relief. In particular, it endorsed the judge’s decision to focus, in his consideration of stages 1 and 3 of the Denton test, on the effect of the breach rather than the effect of granting relief from sanctions. Continue reading
We have all read the headlines (“You say Safe Harbor, we say Safe Harbour, let’s call the whole thing off?”), but what does the Court of Justice’s judgment in Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner C-362/14 mean for litigators?
There are two circumstances when litigators tend to think about data protection: as part of a disclosure exercise or when responding to a request from a foreign court or regulator. The Schrems judgment is about, “business-as-usual” transfers to the US, but it has meant that all transfers are increasingly in the spotlight. Continue reading