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.
Latest Articles
On the Record: Cooley Litigation Trends Webinar Series – Online Marketplaces + Ecommerce
Please join Cooley’s litigation team for our next session of our continued legal education (CLE) webinar series, where we explore trends and insights on the disputes landscape in the UK and mainland Europe, and the issues that drive them.
Online marketplaces and ecommerce now dominate the modern world of B2C transactions. But what does that mean in terms litigation risk – be that regulatory litigation or consumer / commercial litigation? And which areas present the highest risk for businesses operating in this industry?
In this webinar, we’ll take a look at what’s changing for online marketplaces and ecommerce in terms of regulatory obligations, consumer rights, and what it means for businesses and legal teams working in the digital space in terms of litigation risk. We’ll help unpack the latest legal developments across the EU and UK.
Court of Appeal Upholds Contract With Open Price Clause
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.
Are You in This Party? The Scope of Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986
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.
UK Civil Justice Council Publishes Review of Litigation Funding
The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has published its highly anticipated final report on the regulation and development of litigation funding in England and Wales. This comprehensive report addresses the implications of the UK Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & others) v. Competition Appeals Tribunal & others,[1] examines various funding mechanisms, and proposes legislative reforms to clarify and regulate these funding types.
Class Dismissed? Representative Claims in Getty v. Stability AI
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.
On the Record: Cooley Litigation Trends Webinar Series – Dispute Resolution Clauses
This webinar will aim to answer all your most burning questions around drafting the “perfect” dispute resolution clause, to bulletproof your business from litigation risk across Europe.
Tuesday, 24 June 2025 – 4:30-5:30pm BST
Mediation: Cracking the Hardest Nuts
The last couple of years have seen a dramatic rise in the promotion of alternative dispute resolution generally and mediation in particular by the English judiciary. The Court of Appeal in Churchill v. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council[1] held that, contrary to popular belief, the courts had the power to order parties to mediate; the Civil Procedure Rules were duly amended to incorporate that power explicitly. And then, in DKH Retail Limited & Others v. City Football Group Limited[2], the court made the first compulsory mediation order.
On the Record: Cooley Litigation Trends Webinar Series – Content and Safety Litigation
With online safety laws becoming prolific – and content moderation and child protection obligations at the forefront of this – how are we starting to see this sea-change play out in litigation? In this webinar session, we’ll explore related developments across the UK, EU and US.
Two Judgments on Forum Challenges
Two notable English court judgments on jurisdiction have been handed down in the last few months – the first being the Court of Appeal’s decision in Limbu & Others v. Dyson Technology Ltd & Others[1], and the second the High Court’s decision in da Silva & Others v. Brazil Iron Ltd & Another[2]. Both cases involved group litigation against UK-domiciled companies in respect of the actions of third parties overseas. In both cases, the defendants challenged the English courts’ jurisdiction on the grounds that the respective foreign courts were the more appropriate forum for the dispute. In both cases, the court rejected the challenge and retained jurisdiction. In Limbu, the Court of Appeal found, contrary to the conclusion of the High Court, that England was the more appropriate forum. In da Silva, however, the High Court found that Brazil was the more appropriate forum, but it nevertheless retained jurisdiction on the grounds that there was a real risk that the claimants would not obtain substantial justice in Brazil.