Key insights on disputes and the issues that drive them
Key insights on disputes and the issues that drive them
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.
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 …
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 …
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 recent decision in Glover and Another v. Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd and Others[1] should serve as a warning to practitioners to pay heed to the strict rules regarding expert evidence and, in particular, not to interfere at all with the production of the joint expert report
England has no direct equivalent to US class actions. However, there are various claim models under English procedural rules (CPR) that have similarities. They are summarised in our October 2022 blog post – Data Disputes: How the English Class Action Landscape is Shaping Up.
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.
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 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.
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.