The case of Kajima Construction Europe (UK) Ltd v Children’s Ark Partnership Ltd[1] serves as a reminder: a contractual Dispute Resolution Provision (“DRPâ€) 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.
Latest Articles
Take the Time to Take Notice
A failure to comply with provisions governing the notification of claims under share purchase agreements is an issue that comes before the courts with surprising regularity. Given that such failure could result in any subsequent claim being summarily dismissed, it is self-evident that utmost care must be taken when drafting notices of claim – you rarely get a second chance to make a compliant notification.
New Product Liability Laws Coming to EU – Update for Life Sciences Companies
The EU is currently overhauling its product liability laws. Prompted by the perceived risks of new technologies and a desire to make it easier for claimants to bring claims for medical device and pharmaceutical claims, the changes represent a major shift in the litigation landscape in the EU. They will have a profound effect for life sciences companies, especially when taken together with the EU’s new class actions mechanisms. As a result, businesses need to prepare for an increase in the already growing trend of EU consumer claims against life sciences manufacturers and suppliers.
Time to Cotton On: Managing Supply Chain Risks
Potential criminal activity in international supply chains can create reputational, civil, and criminal risks. This can be particularly difficult to manage when there are many links in the chain from the source of raw materials to the final product.
One regular question is whether revenue and profit generated from tainted supply chains can be regarded as the proceeds of crime; if so, anti-money laundering legislation may be engaged. This has been considered in a recent High Court case, arising in the context of a special interest group challenging a law enforcement decision not to launch an investigation into alleged supply chain criminality.
‘Party To’: the Scope of Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986
In Tradition Financial Service Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd & Others, the Court of Appeal considered the scope of section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and, specifically, whether those beyond the small group of individuals with controlling or managerial functions of the liquidated company could be ‘party to’ the carrying on of a company’s businesses with intent to defraud creditors.
Threading Carefully
It is increasingly common to use email threading to reduce the burden and expense of reviewing and producing multiple copies of different stages of the same email conversation. However, the use of threading can backfire significantly if the technology is not fully understood.
Known Unknowns: Settling Uncertainty
Settlement agreements are designed to remove uncertainty. With this in mind, parties typically prefer to agree broad releases so that the chance of any claim surviving the settlement is slim. However, while a broad release will clearly settle the known claims between the parties, what about the unknown claims?
Trials and Tribulations: Minimising the Risk of Disputes Arising from Clinical Trial Agreements
The Clinical Trials Regulation, which came into force last year, has modified (and in some cases increased) responsibilities for sponsors, streamlined reporting processes and improved protection for clinical trial subjects. In light of the regulatory changes, now is a good time to consider best practices when negotiating and performing Clinical Trial Agreements.
Stolen Cryptoassets: Further Guidance on Injunctions and Jurisdiction
In Osbourne v Persons Unknown & Others, the High Court of England and Wales confirmed that there is ‘at least a realistically arguable case’ that non-fungible tokens are to be treated as property as a matter of English law and that their inherently unique nature makes them suitable objects of prohibitory injunctions.
The Court also held that it is ‘strongly arguable’ that when a cryptoasset is stolen from a victim located in England, a constructive trust arises that is governed by English law. Further, if that cryptoasset is subsequently transferred to others, the question of whether they are constructive trustees is also a matter of English law. As such, the Court has jurisdiction over claims against those subsequent recipients of the stolen cryptoasset regardless of their location.
Court of Appeal decides that cryptoasset software developers may have a duty to help recover bitcoin
The Court of Appeal has decided that cryptoasset software developers may owe fiduciary duties or a duty of care to help recover bitcoin which is inaccessible as a result of criminal activity.
This is not a final decision. The Court has simply decided that the claim, against foreign defendants, is arguable and can go to trial.