Knowledge

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.

Knowledge

<p>Filter Knowledge</p>

  • Filter Knowledge

    Articles Filtering:

31 Results

The Dispute Resolution Yearbook 2024

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.

Dishonestly assisting directors: Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited v Ruhan and others [2023] EWCA Civ 1120

Last month the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited v Ruhan and others [2023] EWCA Civ 1120. This case deals with several, complex legal issues concerning the availability of equitable compensation against an individual who has provided dishonest assistance in a breach of fiduciary duty in circumstances where the breaches of fiduciary duty in question are properly to be categorised as a "single and uninterrupted course of conduct". 

Travers Smith wins double at Financial Times Innovative Lawyers Europe Awards 2023

Travers Smith LLP is delighted that its Dispute Resolution team has been awarded "Innovation in Disputes" and its Legal Technology and AI team has won "Innovation in Digital Solutions" at the Financial Times Innovative Lawyers Europe Awards 2023. Additionally, Travers Smith was ranked as the 12th "Most Innovative Law Firm in Europe".

Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC: The "Quincecare" duty survives but the Supreme Court rules that it does not extend to victims of APP fraud

The Supreme Court held that the Quincecare duty does not extend to so-called "authorised push payment" (APP) fraud, whereby the victim is induced by fraudulent means to authorise their bank to send a payment to a bank account controlled by the fraudster. Pursuant to the first principles of banking law, it is a basic duty under a bank's contract with a customer to make payments from the credited account in compliance with the customer's instructions.

The Court of Appeal confirms a single correct test for granting a case management stay

In a case involving an exclusive jurisdiction clause for the English courts and parallel criminal proceedings in the Vatican, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that there is a single correct test for granting a case management stay. The relevant question for the Court is "whether in the particular circumstances it is in the interests of justice for a case management stay to be granted".

HP/Autonomy v Lynch & Hussain - A FSMA First

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".

Court of Appeal confirms scope of banks' duty to take reasonable care to protect their customers from fraud: Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 318

The Court of Appeal's recent decision sheds significant light on banks' liability for failing to exercise reasonable skill and care in executing the instructions of their customers. Reversing the ruling of the High Court, the Court of Appeal made clear that the "Quincecare duty" arises not only when it is the customer's agent who fraudulently instructs the bank to transfer the customer's money, but can also arise when the customer themselves, as the victim of a fraud, instructs the bank to do so. The Court of Appeal overturned the summary judgment in the bank's favour, and remitted the case to the High Court for trial. The question of what measures the bank should have had in place to prevent a fraud of this kind can only be determined at trial.

Suppipat v Siam Bank: privilege across jurisdictions

"It does not follow that documents obtained lawfully in one jurisdiction are available for use in litigation in another."  The High Court confirms in Suppipat v Siam Bank [2022] EWHC 381 (Comm) that, where documents obtained in litigation outside the jurisdiction are proposed to be put in use by a party to English proceedings, English law, as the lex fori, will determine the questions of loss of privilege and confidentiality.

Back To Top Back To Top chevron up