Menu

PHLIT: The London Litigation Blog

December 2020: Defendant-friendly guidance on security for costs; Supreme Court rules on collective actions; the High Court considers orders for “disclosure of specific documents”; and new ICC Rules enter into force
In this month’s edition of PHlit, our London litigation know-how blog, we consider (amongst other topics): (i) a defendant-friendly decision of the High Court on security for costs applications which makes clear that claimants must satisfy the Court not only of the existence of its assets but that such assets can be enforced against easily and within a reasonable timeframe; (ii) a landmark ruling of the UK Supreme Court which adopts a purposive approach to collective proceedings and will likely encourage more collective actions in the context of competition law breaches; (iii) High Court guidance on the Court’s powers under the Disclosure Pilot Scheme to order disclosure of specific documents; and (iv) the adoption of the new 2021 ICC Rules which aim to promote greater efficiency and transparency in ICC arbitrations.
November 2020: The High Court tackles ‘class-action tourism’; When is a deal not a deal? When it is Subject to Contract; and Apparent bias of arbitrators considered by the UK Supreme Court
In this month’s edition of PHlit, our London litigation know-how blog, we consider (amongst other topics): (i) a reminder that the English courts will not lightly depart from the lis pendens principle in light of the growing trend in “class-action tourism”; (ii) a Court of Appeal ruling that reminds us that the Subject to Contract label will not lightly be departed from once engaged; and (iii) a landmark ruling of the UK Supreme Court which confirms the test for apparent bias in respect of arbitrators who accept multiple appointments in relation to the same subject matter.
October 2020: Ascertaining the proper law of arbitration agreements; Applying a MAC clause in a COVID-19 world; and Two buses come along at once as the UK Supreme Court hands down two judgments on the illegality defence
In this month’s edition of PHlit, our London litigation know-how blog, we consider (amongst other topics): (i) the landmark judgment of the UK Supreme Court which address the principles for ascertaining the proper governing law of an arbitration agreement; (ii) an interesting High Court decision which considers the application of the rarely deployed (and even more rarely opined upon) MAC clause in a COVID-19 context; and (iii) two judgments of the Supreme Court concerning the application of the Patel v Mirza test for the illegality defence.
September 2020: Privilege for some but not all; Construing industry jargon in commercial contracts; and Policy reasons for implying sanctions for breaches of the CPR
In this month’s edition of PHlit, our London litigation know-how blog, we consider (amongst other topics): (i) a Court of Appeal decision in which litigation privilege was found to apply to text messages in respect of some, but not all, of the defendants: (ii) the interesting procedural aspects arising from the FCA’s first use of the Financial Market Test Case Scheme in the COVID-19 business interruption insurance decision; (iii) the approach taken by the courts to the construction of sector or industry jargon when used in commercial agreements; and (iv) the circumstances in which the courts may imply a sanction for a breach of the civil procedure rules (CPR) even where a sanction is not expressly set out in the rules themselves.
August 2020: Assessing the weight of evidence where there is a serious possibility it was obtained by torture; Responding to tactically-deployed Data Subject Access Requests; and Applying SAAMCO in the context of auditor negligence
In this month’s edition of PHlit, our London litigation know-how blog, we consider (amongst other topics): (i) a ruling of the UK Supreme Court which has clarified the proper approach to assessing the weight of evidence where the court finds that there is a serious possibility (albeit not shown on the balance of probabilities) that it was obtained by torture; (ii) an interesting High Court decision which suggests that financial institutions need not respond to Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) when they are deployed tactically; and (iii) the latest decision on the application of the SAAMCO principle in the context of negligent auditors who failed to detect the insolvency of a group of companies.