<p>Filter Knowledge</p>

Under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 ("CA 2006"), a member of a company may apply to the court for relief by way of petition if they are or have been unfairly prejudiced as a result of an act or omission of the company or the way in which the company's affairs are being or have been conducted. A section 994 petition is the primary procedural tool that minority shareholders can use to seek relief if they are being unfairly prejudiced by the conduct of a majority shareholder or a group of shareholders who are acting as a majority.

The long-awaited Arbitration Act 2025 was signed into law on Monday 24 February 2025.  The Act makes a number of targeted improvements to the Arbitration Act 1996, which remains the legal framework for arbitration in this jurisdiction. Its main provisions will enter into force on a date yet to be determined, although the government has confirmed that the new Act "will be commenced through regulations as soon as practicable".

The Court of Appeal in Kumar Limbu & Others v Dyson Technology Limited & Others [2024] EWCA Civ 1564 ("Limbu CoA") has overturned a High Court decision^[1] which had declined jurisdiction to hear claims against members of the Dyson Group brought by 24 migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh. This means that the claim, which seeks to hold the Defendants liable for alleged forced labour practices and similar human rights abuses at the facilities of one of the Dyson Group's Malaysian suppliers, will now proceed in the English courts.

Parties to a contract often do not give sufficient thought to how they should best resolve their disputes.  For instance, parties might always use a template contract that refers disputes to the local courts, but that might not be the best option for each deal or contract.  Referring disputes to arbitration can be hugely advantageous; this brief article highlights some of those advantages.  However, it is vital that the relevant arbitration clause is drafted properly; an unclear or incomplete arbitration clause is a guaranteed road to preliminary and procedural battles that can be expensive and delay resolution of the substantive dispute.

The litigation funding market in England and Wales has grown rapidly in recent years under a largely self-regulated regime but change may be on the horizon in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in PACCAR,¹ which prompted renewed public discussion about the funding industry and the extent to which it facilitates access to justice. The government has indicated that it will consider any recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council (CJC), which recently released its interim report on the subject, and which is currently running a public consultation on approaches to regulation.

In the final twist of this much talked about case, a consent order was filed on 18 December 2024 dismissing the shareholder action brought by 460 institutional investors against Barclays Plc ("Barclays") following a confidential settlement.

In Spain v London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd,¹ on 12 December 2024 the Court of Appeal upheld a Commercial Court ruling which refused to register and recognise a €855 million Spanish judgment issued against the London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association (the "Club"). The Spanish judgment was inconsistent with earlier arbitral awards issued in London in respect of the same dispute. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal recognised that the res judicata created by a binding arbitral award is essential in the legal order of the United Kingdom (UK), and therefore it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to recognise the inconsistent Spanish judgment in England & Wales.

An abridged version of this article was originally published in Artificial Lawyer here.

What happens if parties settle a fraud claim and then the claimant seeks to re-open the litigation?

Our round-up of recent and forthcoming developments in UK law and practice for our international stakeholders.

Introduction

In our Dispute Resolution Yearbook article Anti-suit injunctions for foreign seated arbitrations – a closing door?, we discussed the Court of Appeal's decision in UniCredit -v- RusChemAlliance^[1] in which the Court of Appeal granted a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) restraining RusChemAlliance LLA (RCA) from pursuing court proceedings in Russia, in breach of a Paris-seated arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal's judgment was the first time that the English Courts had ordered, on a contested basis, that England was the proper place to bring a claim for an ASI in respect of a foreign-seated arbitration clause.

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

Welcome to our latest investigations newsletter, bringing you up-to-speed on the latest trends and developments in this ever-evolving area.

Welcome to the latest edition of our quarterly disputes newsletter, which covers key developments in the dispute resolution world over the last few months.

Recent developments suggested that prosecutions under the so-called French Blocking Statute (the "FBS") would become more likely.  But a High Court decision has followed the old authorities in deciding that – even where a party has letters from the relevant French authority indicating that they may be in breach of the FBS – disclosure would be ordered in the English courts via normal civil procedure, without recourse to the Hague Convention. 

The 2024 edition of our award winning Dispute Resolution Yearbook provides an overview of the disputes market in general, insights into our practice, and an opportunity to learn more about our team.

Financier Worldwide: 'Environmental, social and governance (ESG) concerns have climbed the boardroom agenda in recent years. It is an area which requires innovative solutions and pragmatic problem solving.

Travers Smith LLP is delighted to announce the promotion of eight lawyers to Senior Counsel, effective from 1 July 2024.  

In its decision dismissing the appeal against the Competition Appeal Tribunal's ("CAT" or "Tribunal") order for two Defendant groups to use a single joint expert at trial, the Court of Appeal has made clear that the Tribunal's duty to restrict expert evidence to that which is reasonably required to resolve the dispute is the paramount consideration. While the issues of proportionality and the potential for conflicts of interest are relevant considerations in determining whether separate experts are required, those considerations must be assessed against the requirement to dispose of cases justly.