Our knowledge resources reflect the breadth and depth of our expertise, our insight into the issues which matter to your business, and our understanding of the markets in which you operate.
The recent judgment of the High Court in Palladian Partners & Ors v The Republic of Argentina & Anor [2022] EWHC 2059 (Comm) provides an interesting insight into the factors that will be weighed by the court in determining whether a confidentiality obligation owed to a third party should obviate the need for a party to provide inspection of relevant documents in English litigation.
There is a growing trend amongst activists and claimant law firms to pursue novel causes of action against companies for acts or omissions that, while not directly attributable to them, are said to result in alleged human rights breaches in their value chains.
In a recent decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT"), the CAT held that an email inadvertently disclosed by a party was protected by without prejudice privilege ("WPP").
In this decision, the court confirmed that it did not have the power to extend the "relevant period" for acceptance a Part 36 offer. In reaching that conclusion, Master Thornett gave some important reminders about how the Part 36 rules operate in practice, and how the court's approach to them, as a "self-contained code", will differ from its approach to other rules.
On 20 July 2022 the Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab, announced a package of measures designed to tackle the increased use of SLAPPs in the courts of England and Wales.
Since the Supreme Court's rulings in Vedanta Resources Plc v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20 ("Vedanta") and HRH Emere Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell [2021] UKSC 3 ("Okpabi"), much has been written about the potential impact these decisions may have on UK-domiciled businesses with foreign operations and, in particular, how they will assist claimants who wish to initiate large-scale group litigation.
In AIC Ltd v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria [2022] UKSC 16 the Supreme Court has re-stated the principles to be applied when a judge is asked to revisit a judgment or final order before it has been sealed by the Court, where there has been a change in relevant circumstances in the meantime.
On 25 May 2022 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Pfizer and Flynn v CMA [2022] UKSC 14, reinstating the Competition Appeal Tribunal's ("CAT's") decision to award Pfizer and Flynn costs arising from their successful appeal against the decision by the Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA") which found that Pfizer and Flynn had abused their dominant position in relation to the supply of epilepsy medication.
This decision considers the somewhat ambiguous test in English law regarding unilateral mistake.
The High Court recently considered whether the delay to the Premier League season caused by the first COVID-19 lockdown triggered a material adverse change clause (commonly known as a MAC clause) in contracts for broadcasting rights. In this briefing we look at how this compares with previous cases on MAC clauses and what the lessons are when drafting such provisions.
Welcome to the first episode in our Spotlight on ESG video series.
Welcome to the seventh edition of our quarterly disputes newsletter, which covers key developments in the dispute resolution world over the last three months or so.
A party that is not satisfied with an award made by an arbitration tribunal may, in certain circumstances, seek to challenge it before the courts. The Arbitration Act 1996 ("the Act"), which applies to arbitrations which have their seat in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, provides several such avenues for review by the courts.
Travers Smith LLP acted for the Claimants in these proceedings.
"Fraud on a grand scale; or relentless witch-hunt?": these were the first eight words of Mr Justice Hildyard's mammoth (almost 1,700 page) judgment in the high profile fraud claim brought by various Hewlett-Packard group companies (the "Claimants") against Dr Michael Lynch (the founder and former CEO of Autonomy Corporation Plc ("Autonomy")) and Mr Sushovan Hussain (the former CFO of Autonomy) following a 93 day trial which Hildyard J said "may rank amongst the longest and most complex in English legal history".
The Supreme Court's judgment in Lloyd v Google in November 2021 (see our briefing) significantly curbed "opt-out" representative actions brought under CPR 19.6, but it left a number of unanswered questions - a trail of crumbs for claimant law firms to pick over. One such question was whether a different conclusion would be reached under the Data Protection Act 2018 (and UK GDPR) as the claim for loss of control of data in Lloyd was made under the Data Protection Act 1998.
In this appeal, which Lewison LJ noted was important to those who practise in the professional negligence field, the Court of Appeal considered the effect and scope of section 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (the "1978 Act"). The Court held that s.1(4) was concerned only with the liability of the party claiming contribution, and not with the liability of the party against whom contribution is sought, clarifying what has to be proved by a contribution claimant to succeed on a contribution claim.
ESG and sustainability issues continue to be a priority for policy makers and regulators globally. The impact of the Ukraine conflict on energy policy and the recent publication of the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) "state of the union" report on the slender window we have to take action in order to meet our climate targets both highlight the scale of the global challenge we face on climate issues.
In the recent decision in MUR Shipping BV v RTI Ltd [2022] EWHC 467 (Comm), the court found that a force majeure clause applied, even though the affected party had offered alternative performance. The case also contains some useful lessons about the limits of arbitral appeals and obligations to pay in a particular currency against the background of sanctions.