Latest Articles

Take the Time to Take Notice

A failure to comply with provisions governing the notification of claims under share purchase agreements is an issue that comes before the courts with surprising regularity. Given that such failure could result in any subsequent claim being summarily dismissed, it is self-evident that utmost care must be taken when drafting notices of claim – you rarely get a second chance to make a compliant notification.

New Product Liability Laws Coming to EU – Update for Life Sciences Companies

The EU is currently overhauling its product liability laws. Prompted by the perceived risks of new technologies and a desire to make it easier for claimants to bring claims for medical device and pharmaceutical claims, the changes represent a major shift in the litigation landscape in the EU. They will have a profound effect for life sciences companies, especially when taken together with the EU’s new class actions mechanisms. As a result, businesses need to prepare for an increase in the already growing trend of EU consumer claims against life sciences manufacturers and suppliers.

Time to Cotton On: Managing Supply Chain Risks

Potential criminal activity in international supply chains can create reputational, civil, and criminal risks. This can be particularly difficult to manage when there are many links in the chain from the source of raw materials to the final product.

One regular question is whether revenue and profit generated from tainted supply chains can be regarded as the proceeds of crime; if so, anti-money laundering legislation may be engaged. This has been considered in a recent High Court case, arising in the context of a special interest group challenging a law enforcement decision not to launch an investigation into alleged supply chain criminality.

‘Party To’: the Scope of Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986

In Tradition Financial Service Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd & Others, the Court of Appeal considered the scope of section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and, 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 businesses with intent to defraud creditors.

Trials and Tribulations: Minimising the Risk of Disputes Arising from Clinical Trial Agreements

The Clinical Trials Regulation, which came into force last year, has modified (and in some cases increased) responsibilities for sponsors, streamlined reporting processes and improved protection for clinical trial subjects. In light of the regulatory changes, now is a good time to consider best practices when negotiating and performing Clinical Trial Agreements.

Stolen Cryptoassets: Further Guidance on Injunctions and Jurisdiction

In Osbourne v Persons Unknown & Others, the High Court of England and Wales confirmed that there is ‘at least a realistically arguable case’ that non-fungible tokens are to be treated as property as a matter of English law and that their inherently unique nature makes them suitable objects of prohibitory injunctions.

The Court also held that it is ‘strongly arguable’ that when a cryptoasset is stolen from a victim located in England, a constructive trust arises that is governed by English law. Further, if that cryptoasset is subsequently transferred to others, the question of whether they are constructive trustees is also a matter of English law. As such, the Court has jurisdiction over claims against those subsequent recipients of the stolen cryptoasset regardless of their location.

Court of Appeal decides that cryptoasset software developers may have a duty to help recover bitcoin

The Court of Appeal has decided that cryptoasset software developers may owe fiduciary duties or a duty of care to help recover bitcoin which is inaccessible as a result of criminal activity.

This is not a final decision. The Court has simply decided that the claim, against foreign defendants, is arguable and can go to trial.

The High Court Shows Support for Arbitral Process

In its instructive judgment in RQP v ZYX, the High Court of England and Wales has provided helpful commentary on two aspects of the arbitration process, namely: (i) the limited circumstances in which a tribunal may have jurisdiction over a set-off counterclaim; and (ii) the scope of the courts’ role in enforcing orders made by tribunals. In doing so, it has demonstrated the respect the courts have for the arbitral process and a constructive view as to when and how they should support that process.