Civil Procedure

Showing: 1 - 10 of 41 Articles

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.

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.

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.  

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.