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.
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.
The Million-Pound Question (Revisited): Is My Contract Unfair?
The decision of the High Court of England and Wales in Durber v. PPB Entertainment Ltd is another helpful case study in how to host a consumer-facing website.[1] It is interesting, given how much time is spent carefully drafting the substance of terms and conditions, that the presentation of those same terms and conditions to consumers can sometimes be an afterthought. If companies do not get this right, there is a real risk that they may be providing consumers with the ammunition they need to argue that any relevant terms and conditions are unenforceable against them.
On the Record: Cooley Litigation Trends Webinar Series – A Guide to UK Litigation for US Lawyers
Please join Cooley’s litigation team for the third session of our continuing 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.
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).
‘After the Event’ Insurance Policy Given No Weight in Security for Costs Application
In Asertis Ltd v. Bloch,[1] in the context of a security for costs application, the English High Court determined that it could give no value to an ‘after the event’ (ATE) insurance policy even though it was supplemented with an ‘anti-avoidance endorsement’ (AAE). The policy at issue does not appear to have met market norms – in particular, it did not provide benefits directly to the defendant.
Conflicts of Law: Norwich Pharmacal Orders in Liechtenstein
In Magomedov & Others v. Kuzovkov & Others,[1] the High Court handed down an interesting decision examining the conflict of foreign criminal law with the discretion of the Courts of England and Wales to grant a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO).
Freeze! Do You Have a ‘Good Arguable Case’?
In dos Santos v. Unitel S.A.,[1] the Court of Appeal helpfully cut through some conflicting authorities and restated a key requirement that applicants must satisfy to be granted freezing injunctions.
(Truthful) Recollections May Vary: How English Courts Judge Truth From Memory
The judgment in Jaffé & Another v. Greybull Capital LLP & Others [1] gives an excellent insight into how the English courts are grappling with issues arising from the fallibility of memory.
UK Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Suit Injunction in Support of French Arbitration
In UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance LLC,[1] the UK Supreme Court confirmed the general common law rule that a choice of governing law for a contract as a whole will apply to an arbitration agreement within the contract, even when a different country has been chosen for the seat of the arbitration. This was important in the circumstances of the case because it meant that English – as opposed to French – law applied, which in turn gave the English courts jurisdiction to grant an injunction to restrain RusChemAlliance from litigating the dispute in Russian courts in breach of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.