On the Record

The recent High Court decision in Volac International Limited v. IEP Technologies Limited[1] should serve as a reminder to contracting parties to ensure they have effective procedures in place to avoid a ‘battle of forms’ as to whose standard terms have been incorporated.  

The English Court of Appeal’s judgment in KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v. Citrosuco GmbH[1] provides helpful guidance on the enforceability of long-term supply contracts where the price for part of the goods is left open to be agreed in the future. The judgment is particularly notable for its analysis of when a court will imply a term for a reasonable or market price, and its willingness to uphold commercial bargains in the face of contractual uncertainty.

The UK Supreme Court recently handed down a judgment in Tradition Financial Services Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd & Others[1] in which it considered the scope of section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986, specifically whether those beyond the small group of individuals with controlling or managerial functions of the liquidated company could be ‘party to’ the carrying on of a company’s business with intent to defraud creditors.

Earlier this year, the English High Court considered an application for strike out of a representative action in the ongoing dispute between Getty and Stability AI. The case is at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) issues in connection with generative artificial intelligence (AI) and class actions in the UK – issues close to Cooley’s heart – and we have been following developments with interest. The trial is listed to be heard in June, and so we’ll likely need to wait a while longer before we receive a decision on the IP implications arising from the use of third-party materials to train generative AI models. However, this recent decision provides insight into the extent to which the English court will be prepared to entertain class actions for IP claims, even in respect of complex tech litigation.