Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Michael Ward and Nicola Bridge explore the use and usefulness of freezing orders

Freezing orders prohibit dealings with specified assets, and are granted when the court is persuaded that there is a real risk that the respondent will dissipate those assets so as to render nugatory a judgment or arbitral award. An applicant must show that the respondent has assets within the jurisdiction but, once this is proven, the prohibition can extend to assets held in other jurisdictions. Any person breaching (or helping to breach) the terms of a freezing order is at risk of contempt proceedings, and ultimately faces the possibility of imprisonment.

Paul Jonson reviews submissions made to the Jackson review

This article focuses on the likely impact on commercial litigation funding of the reforms proposed in Jackson LJ’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs, which is now, of course, largely to be implemented through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (the Bill).

Alan Watts and Anna Bateman conclude their review of recent cases on the law of confidence and privacy

Following our previous article on confidence and privacy in the last issue of CLJ, this article examines recent cases on those orders beloved by footballers and celebrities: super-injunctions (and anonymity orders) or, in more popular parlance, ‘gagging orders’.

Mathew Leverton reviews recent guidelines, bad faith and the Bribery Act

If it is possible to generalise at all, one might observe that the law dealing with dishonest or fraudulent behaviour is concerned with conduct that has a quality of bad faith, untruth or perhaps unlawful ‘sharp practice’ about it. Logically, bribery falls within this definition in that it is an inherently dishonest activity by which defendants aim to make gains for themselves, usually at the expense of others.

Dick Warner looks at recent case law on awards of costs following discontinuance of proceedings

It is a general rule, well established in the hearts and minds of every practitioner, that the discontinuing claimant must pay the costs of the defendant. The rule is set out in r38.6(1) CPR:

Johnathan Payne and Richard McKeown assess the impact of Edwards-Tubb v Wetherspoon

Litigators should be aware of the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in the case of Edwards-Tubb v JD Wetherspoon Plc [2011], which deals with the jurisdiction of the court to make a conditional order in relation to permission to rely upon expert reports.

Gary Lawrenson considers the impact of Jones v Kaney

In Jones v Kaney [2011] the Supreme Court ruled on expert immunity in civil litigation. Until this decision, experts were given immunity from suit to encourage them to give full and truthful evidence without fear of retribution.

Kai Struckmann and Genevra Forwood map out the options available to companies unable to pay fines imposed by the European Commission

European Commission fines for infringements of competition law are high. It is no longer uncommon for fines to reach the legal maximum of 10% of the company’s worldwide turnover. It is therefore unsurprising, especially in times of financial crisis, that many companies find themselves unable to pay the fine. This poses a dilemma for the enforcement of competition rules: to allow companies to avoid paying the consequences of breaking the rules would undermine the whole competition regime. At the same time, it is undesirable from a social and economic point of view (and may indeed be counterproductive in terms of competition) for companies to be fined into bankruptcy.