The Law Commission of England and Wales has, for the last four years, been heavily focussed on addressing the legal issues that arise in the context of emerging technologies.[1] It has now started work on a new project to examine and clarify how existing private international law does and should apply to emerging technologies – specifically, digital assets and electronic trade documents. It has issued a call for evidence from stakeholders, with responses to be submitted by 16 May 2024.
Consultation on Increased Public Access to Documents in Civil Proceedings
The Civil Procedure Rules Committee is consulting on a proposed draft amendment to Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 5.4, which would allow significantly increased public access to documents with potentially far-reaching impacts.
Litigation Funding Agreements: Developments Since PACCAR
Litigation funding agreements have been very much in the spotlight since the decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal and others,[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom found that a funding agreement that provided for the funder’s remuneration to be calculated as a percentage of any damages recovered was an unenforceable damages-based agreement (DBA). Given the prevalence of such funding agreements, the judgment was a significant cause for concern.
Court Strikes Out Claim Served by Email but Suggests Service Rules Should Be Reviewed
In Chehaib v. King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation,[1] the High Court of England and Wales dismissed the claimant’s application for relief in respect of a claim form that had expired, having been ineffectively served via email without permission. While the master found she was bound by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and case law to dismiss the application for relief, she suggested that it might be time to review the rules on service of proceedings to allow for service via email without the need for permission.
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.
UK to Sign Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
The Ministry of Justice has published the UK government’s response to the consultation on joining the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, concluding that it is the right time for the UK to join the convention.
Part 36 Offer Containing Term Court Could Not Have Ordered Deemed Valid
In Robert Colicci & Others v. Nora Grinberg & Another, the High Court of England and Wales confirmed that a Part 36 offer containing a term that the court would not have been able to order (in this case, a payment to the defendant in exchange for the transfer of shares) was a valid Part 36 offer.
High Court Endorses Seven Principles for Securing Precautionary Injunctions
Injunctions are typically sought by parties after wrongdoing has already taken place. However, the English courts may grant a ‘quia timet’ – or ‘precautionary’ – injunction to prevent an actionable wrong from being committed.
In University of Brighton v. Persons Unknown Occupying Land, the High Court of England and Wales granted a final injunction preventing protesters from occupying certain areas of the claimant’s executive administration office. This judgment provides a useful restatement of the principles applied by the courts when determining whether to award a precautionary injunction.
EU Plans To Regulate Third-Party Funding in Litigation and International Arbitration
On 13th September 2022, the EU Parliament voted to approve a resolution proposing a directive (the “Directive”) on the regulation of third-party funding entitled “Responsible private funding of litigation”. If adopted in its current state, the proposal would regulate Third-Party Funders (“TPFs”) funding proceedings in the European Union.
Contractual Dispute Resolution Procedure as a Condition Precedent: Clarity is Key
The case of Kajima Construction Europe (UK) Ltd v Children’s Ark Partnership Ltd[1] serves as a reminder: a contractual Dispute Resolution Provision (“DRP”) can be a condition precedent to commencing proceedings. In a departure from previous case law,[2] the High Court in Kajima found a DRP does not actually have to be expressed as a condition precedent to be enforceable as one.