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.
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.
Hammon v. UCL: Group Litigation Order Denied in Favour of English Court’s Case Management Powers
In David Hammon and Others v. University College London[1], the High Court of Justice found that the threshold requirements for making a group litigation order (GLO) had been met but decided that the court’s general case management powers would be more appropriate to manage the claims, rather than a GLO.
The case emphasises important questions about the future of GLOs as a mechanism for group litigation in a landscape where class actions are on the rise.
High Court Takes Practical Approach to Procedure in Enforcement of New York Court Judgment on Crypto Fraud
Tai Mo Shan Ltd v. Persons Unknown[1] is the latest in a series of cases in which the English courts have demonstrated their willingness to make practical procedural decisions to assist the victims of crypto fraud. In this case, the High Court of England and Wales granted the claimant permission to serve out of the jurisdiction in order to enforce a judgment of a New …
Cross-Border Considerations for Protecting Privileged Evidence
On 6 June 2024, Sascha Grimm from our London office, Teresa Michaud from our Los Angeles office and Jonas Koponen from our Brussels office hosted a webinar on Cross-Border Considerations for Protecting Privileged Evidence. The session explores how to deal with cross-jurisdictional privilege issues that arise, in particular, for organisations with multiple group companies around the world. Sascha, Teresa and Jonas walk through a hypothetical …
Cross-Border Considerations for Protecting Privileged Evidence
On 6 June 2024, Sascha Grimm from our London office, Teresa Michaud from our Los Angeles office and Jonas Koponen from our Brussels office hosted a webinar on Cross-Border Considerations for Protecting Privileged Evidence.