Skip to main content

Insights & News

Search for Insights & News

  • Early Specific Disclosure Applications – factors the court will consider

    22 January 2018

    A decision in the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC") sheds light on the applicable test for early specific disclosure and the relevant considerations in making a successful application. Applications for early specific disclosure are relatively rare so the judgment provides helpful guidance.

  • English courts and overseas defendants: jurisdiction challenges and the “two-fold test”

    15 January 2018

    When a dispute involves a foreign party or events that took place in another jurisdiction, questions often arise as to where the dispute should be determined.

  • Compulsory mediation?

    11 January 2018

    In October 2017 the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published its interim report on the future role of alternative approaches to dispute resolution (ADR). The report makes various recommendations as well as inviting responses. It follows input from a working group tasked in January 2017 to examine uptake of ADR in civil justice. The primary purpose of the report is to find ways to encourage its use.

  • Disclosure in English litigation: a sea change is coming

    09 January 2018

    English rules on disclosure (‘discovery’ in many jurisdictions) are set for a major overhaul. Draft rules were published in November 2017. Once approved by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the resulting draft is intended to be introduced as part of a pilot scheme lasting 2 years, potentially beginning in April 2018 and running in the Business and Property Courts. This will cover virtually all High Court litigation. It will not be optional.

  • Erosion of privilege – Law Society seeks to intervene

    08 January 2018

    The Law Society is applying to intervene in the upcoming appeal of the landmark privilege decision in Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited (“ENRC”).

  • Use of disclosed documents to threaten new proceedings was a breach of court rules and may amount to a contempt of court by the solicitor and client

    12 December 2017

    The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provide that using documents disclosed in existing proceedings (except for the specific purposes allowed) breach the rules. CPR 31.22 provides various exceptions to when a document disclosed in a set of proceedings may be used. Any use outside of the rules could also amount to a contempt of court. Both the client who relied on the solicitor’s advice and the solicitor may be equally vulnerable to the contempt proceedings where there is no evidence of deliberate or reckless misconduct by the solicitor.

  • Validly serving a Statutory Demand is a prerequisite for presenting a Bankruptcy Petition

    22 June 2017

    The court has stressed the importance of validly serving a Statutory Demand before presenting a Bankruptcy Petition. The creditor must do all that is reasonably required to bring the service of the Statutory Demand to the attention of the debtor. Without effectively serving a Statutory Demand on the debtor, presenting a valid Bankruptcy Petition is impossible.

  • Marathon Asset misses the jackpot again

    12 April 2017

    After being awarded only £2 in nominal damages in its breach of confidence case, Marathon Asset has been heavily penalised on costs after failing to accept the defendants’ Part 36 offer.

  • Court considers service of a defendant’s notice to force claimant to serve proceedings or discontinue a claim

    14 February 2017

    A recent decision not only reminds practitioners of a defendant’s ability to force a claimant to either serve proceedings or discontinue a claim by using a CPR 7.7(1) notice, but also considers for the first time the date for compliance with such a notice.

  • Legal advice privilege: Not as wide as you think?

    08 February 2017

    Who is a lawyer’s client and what type of communications are protected for the purposes of legal advice privilege have been the subject of two recent important High Court decisions. These cases make it clear that not all communications between lawyers and a client’s employees will be protected by legal advice privilege, even if the communication took place to allow legal advice to be given.

Back To Top