REUTERS | Brandon Malone

The recent case of Jalla v Royal Dutch Shell is a potent reminder of the considerations that claimants should take into account, particularly relating to the circumstances in which amendments to the particulars of claim will be accepted by the court, limitation issues, and the quality of evidence provided in support of applications. The judgment makes for informative reading, and contains important lessons both for legal practitioners and for lay clients. Continue reading

REUTERS | Carl Recine

Anyone working in the costs world, where your client is a receiving party, will no doubt understand one of the core considerations in all cases. What is an appropriate amount to have on account of your bill? We have had a number of judgments in recent times which have given guidance on this point. Mars UK v Teknowledge Ltd has been widely used to secure payments of two thirds of receiving parties’ costs. Continue reading

REUTERS | Yara Nardi

Legal professional privilege (LPP) is once again in the headlines, following a series of recent high profile decisions. In January 2020, the Court of Appeal in Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd rejected an attempt to circumvent LPP by a party that alleged LPP had been waived. Then in February, the Court of Appeal in Sports Direct International Plc v Financial Reporting Council rejected an attempt to extend an exception to LPP and reaffirmed that where LPP applies, it can only be overridden in very limited circumstances where there is express statutory authority demonstrating Parliament’s intention to do so. More recently, in March, the High Court in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP reaffirmed that fraud is one of the very limited number of exceptions that permit the court to order disclosure of materials that would otherwise have been protected by LPP. Continue reading

REUTERS | Denis Balibouse

In Boas and others v Aventure International Ltd, HHJ Hodge QC, sitting as a section 9 High Court judge, allowed an appeal against a recorder’s county court judgment about the exact location of a disputed boundary, in rare circumstances where the recorder had failed to consider the full effect of specific and clear photographic evidence, and further failed to outline the correct factual implications from that evidence. The High Court was therefore left to examine the principles surrounding appeals against a judge’s findings of fact. Continue reading

REUTERS | Mike Blake

It has been clear for some time that a third party who funds litigation on commercial terms may be ordered to pay the costs of the winning defendant if the funded claim is unsuccessful. What was less clear, until recently, was the extent of that liability, and in particular whether it is subject to a fixed limit in the form of the so-called “Arkin cap”. Continue reading


In the recent decision of Civil Aviation Authority v R Jet2, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the dominant purpose test, previously understood by some to be the sole domain of litigation privilege, also applies to legal advice privilege (LAP). The decision means that only those communications created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice will be protected by LAP. We consider some of the practical implications of this decision below. Continue reading