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.
Our colleagues in the Products team have posted the first in a series of the European Union’s General Product Safety Regulation: The EU’s General Product Safety Regulation: What’s New? – Productwise (cooley.com). This is a substantial update of the current regime and brings increased enforcement and class action risks.
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC), which became law on 24 May 2024, represents a major shift in UK digital, competition and consumer protection regulation. In particular, the DMCC:
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.
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.
Regardless of whether you are in the UK, or the type of technology you use, companies marketing ‘qualifying cryptoassets’ to customers in the UK will need to comply with the financial promotions regime of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the UK’s financial regulator.
This week, the European Council and Parliament reached provisional agreement on a new European Union (EU) directive to ’empower consumers for the green transition’.
On 26 July 2023, the UK Supreme Court handed down a judgment that will cause serious disruption (at least in the short term) to the litigation funding market. In R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal and others, the Supreme Court held by a majority that litigation funding agreements which entitled the funders to recover a percentage of the damages recovered were damages-based agreements and, as such, were unenforceable, as they did not meet the strict statutory conditions for such agreements.
In the recent decision of Jalla & Another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd & Another, the UK Supreme Court held that a one-off oil spill did not represent a continuing nuisance regardless of the continued presence of the oil on the claimant’s land.