The judgment in Houssein & Others v. London Credit Ltd[1] provides a useful summary of the English penalty rule and guidance on its application in practice. It is an important reminder that a clause will be struck out in its entirety if any element of it is determined to be penal.
Disclosure: How the English Courts Balance Comity, Risk of Foreign Sanctions and the Fair Disposal of Proceedings
The Court of Appeal’s judgement in Various Claimants v. Standard Chartered plc[1] is a significant decision on whether an English court may compel disclosure of documents that are confidential under foreign regulatory regimes – here, US suspicious activity reports (SARs) and confidential supervisory information (CSI) – and how the court balances comity, the risk of foreign sanctions and the fair disposal of English proceedings.
Part 36 Offers and the Importance of Accounting for a Counterclaim
In Matière SAS v. ABM Precast Solutions Ltd,[1] the High Court held that a Part 36 offer made by the claimant represented a genuine offer to settle the claim but effectively offered nothing in respect of the counterclaim. Accordingly, despite having decisively won both the claim and the counterclaim, the claimant was not entitled to the huge costs benefits arising under Part 36 in respect of the costs of the counterclaim.
Warranty Claims: Notification and Service Requirements Under the Microscope (Again)
The English High Court’s judgment in Learning Curve (NE) Group Ltd v. Richard Lewis and Melanie Probert[1] concerned the alleged breach of warranties and an indemnity in a sale purchase agreement (SPA). The defendants put up a vigorous and multifaceted defence, resulting in an extremely wide-ranging judgment. While much of the analysis is highly fact dependent, two of the issues traversed are worth highlighting – notification of claims under an SPA and service of proceedings.
How to Win a ‘Battle of Forms’? Avoid Them!
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.
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.
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.
Money Laundering: The UK Supreme Court’s Decision in El-Khouri Changes Scope of Extraterritoriality Under POCA
In the recent judgment in El-Khouri v. Government of the United States of America,[1] a case concerning the operation of the double criminality rule in the context of extradition, the UK Supreme Court made a seminal ruling on the extraterritorial limits of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
Sanctions Imposed on Non-Compliant Trial Witness Statements
Fulstow & Another v. Francis[1] should serve as a reminder of the court’s willingness to sanction parties severely for failing to comply with the procedural rules relating to trial witness statements.
Court of Appeal Holds That Courts Can Order Parties to Engage in Dispute Resolution
The Court of Appeal’s hotly anticipated decision in James Churchill v. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council has been handed down. It holds that courts have the power to stay proceedings for, or order, parties to engage in a non-court-based dispute resolution process.