<p>Filter Knowledge</p>

The recent judgment of the High Court in London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Limited [2021] EWHC 3103 (Ch) provides an interesting insight into judicial treatment of defective Part 36 offers, the question of when Part 36 offers will be considered genuine offers to settle, and the other factors considered by the court in determining when it would be unjust to apply the full cost consequences prescribed by CPR r. 36.17.

Convoy Collateral, a Hong Kong company, brought proceedings in Hong Kong against Dr Cho, a Hong Kong resident, for various breaches of fiduciary duties.

On 24 November 2021, the Court of Appeal provided a clear reminder of the limited bounds within which the English Courts will make an order for third party disclosure pursuant to a Norwich Pharmacal application.

In this article, we consider the recent decision in Griffiths v TUI [2021] EWCA Civ 1442, a holiday sickness claim, in which the Court of Appeal had to consider the correct judicial approach to expert evidence that was uncontroverted and unchallenged.

Last month, the High Court handed down judgment in Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation^[1] declining an application that would have required the defendant airline to disclose relevant documents held on the mobile phones of two of its senior personnel.

The High Court decision in London Trocadero (2015) LP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd [2021] EWHC 2591 (Ch) represents the latest in a growing line of cases arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic in which the courts have refused to be swayed from established legal principles to accommodate difficulties faced by contractual counterparties, and commercial tenants in particular. Here, the court refused to imply a term into two leases excusing the tenants from the payment of rent and service charges, or accept that there had been a failure of basis, in circumstances where it had at various points during the pandemic been either illegal or unviable for the tenants to use the leased premises.

In a consequential matters judgment handed down on 19 October 2021, the High Court ruled on the correct interpretation of the liability cap in the share sale agreement ("SSA") and the cost consequences of the Part 36 offer.

In this article, we consider the recent decision in Building Design Partnership Limited v Standard Life Assurance Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1793 in which the Court of Appeal considered whether the claimant could rely on extrapolation when pleading its case.

The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre recently produced a report calling into question the quality and utility of the now ubiquitous social audit reporting (Social Audit Liability: Hard Law Strategies to Redress Weak Social Assurances) (the "Report").

This case concerned an application for committal relating to a failure to observe a freezing injunction. The High Court sentenced the defendant, ("Mr Lewis"), to five months' immediate imprisonment and refused to order a suspended sentence because of Mr Lewis' deliberate offending. 

In the latest decision in the very long-running Jalla v Shell litigation, the Court of Appeal has upheld the TCC's decision to refuse the claimants a further extension of time for serving "date of damage" pleadings ("DODPs") and supporting evidence for limitation purposes.

It is fair to say that the highly anticipated judgment of the Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google^[1] which arrived on 10 November, was not the huge game-changer (for both litigators and funders, and data controllers) that some had predicted. The Court unanimously allowed Google's appeal, restoring the order made by the first instance judge that the representative action should not proceed.

On 15 November 2021, P.R.I.M.E. Finance launched its updated Arbitration Rules, which come into effect on 1 January 2022 (the "2022 Rules").  A copy of the new 2022 Rules may be found here.

Welcome to our interactive guide to the lifecycle of the early stages of a tax dispute.

In Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait), the Supreme Court ("UKSC") has provided further confirmation of the approach to determining the law that will govern an arbitration agreement.

In Jones & Ors v Lydon & Ors [2021] EWHC 2322 (Ch), the court confirmed that, where a series of communications is expressed to be made on a "without prejudice" basis, a party must express a clear intention to move the discussions onto an open footing before without prejudice privilege will cease to apply.

The Court of Appeal's judgment in Dargamo Holdings Limited v Avonwick Holdings Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1149^[1] contains important remarks in respect of both the interaction between the law of contract and the law of unjust enrichment, as well as the operation of doctrine of "failure of basis" as a ground of restitution.

At over 1200 pages, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed by the UK and EU in December 2020 does not make for an easy read. This guide breaks it down into the key topics of interest to business. Alongside our commentary on each topic, you will also find links to the relevant provisions of the TCA. As our own analysis of the deal progresses, we will be adding further commentary, so please check back in for updates.

We have recently updated our cross-practice area guide to the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which breaks it down into key topics of interest to business. Our commentary has been fully updated to reflect developments such as the EU's recent data adequacy ruling regarding the UK.

Our regular round-up of recent and forthcoming developments in law and practice for in-house counsel.