This webinar will aim to answer all your most burning questions around drafting the “perfect” dispute resolution clause, to bulletproof your business from litigation risk across Europe.
Tuesday, 24 June 2025 – 4:30-5:30pm BST
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.
On the Record: Cooley Litigation Trends Webinar Series – Update on Key Issues in Crypto Disputes
Please join Cooley’s litigation team for the fourth session of our webinar series “Update on Key Issues in Crypto Disputes”
In this webinar we will delve into the evolving landscape of crypto disputes litigation in the UK and EU. As the adoption of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology continues to rise, so do the legal challenges and disputes associated with them. This webinar is designed for legal professionals, financial institutions, and anyone interested in understanding the complexities of crypto-related litigation.
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.
Court of Appeal Split on Scope of Exclusion Clause
In EE Ltd v. Virgin Mobile Telecoms Ltd[1], the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that EE’s claim against Virgin was excluded under the terms of the parties’ telecommunications supply agreement.[2] While the decision ultimately confirmed the reasoning of the lower court, the decision is notable for being surprisingly close.
Law of Privilege: ‘Shareholder Rule’ Held to Be Unjustifiable
In its decision last year in Aabar Holdings SARL v. Glencore PLC & Others,[1] the High Court handed down a landmark ruling overturning the ‘shareholder rule’, which has been applied to the analysis of legal professional privilege as between a company and its shareholders since the 19th century. The court deemed this long-settled principle of the law of privilege to be ‘unjustifiable’ and held that it should not be applied.
Cap in Hand: Should Liability Caps Be Applied Before or After Set-Off?
In Topalsson GmbH v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited,[1] the Court of Appeal helpfully re-affirmed that the ‘commonsense’ approach to the application of liability caps is to apply them before any set-off calculation.
Gaming Industry Does Not Owe General Duty of Care to Customers
In a significant judgment for the gaming industry, the High Court of England and Wales held in Gibson v. TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair)[1] that gambling operators do not owe a general duty of care to their customers to prevent gambling-related harm, and that licence conditions imposed on operators do not create implied terms in the contract between the consumer and the operator.
Consideration for Call Option Held Not To Be Turnover
In Aymes International Ltd v. Nutrition4U BV, the Court of Appeal held that the consideration paid by a purchaser for a call option should not be included in the calculation of the target company’s turnover on which the calculation of the purchase price was based.
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).