Sun08202017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

The Commercial Litigation Journal: January/February 2013

Chris Webber looks at recent case law on the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings

The UK Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] has halted the march towards (modified) universal recognition of all aspects of foreign insolvency proceedings in English courts, at least for the time being. But is this such a bad thing?

Andrew Savage and Andrew Waters consider the recent Court of Appeal decision in Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corporation [2012] is the latest in a series of decisions concerning capacity in the context of derivative contracts that stretches back to the early 1990s and the House of Lords’ well-known decision in Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1992].

Nick Rowles-Davies assesses the impact of the draft Damages-Based Agreement Regulations

The Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) working party on damages-based agreements (DBAs) has prompted some debate in the litigation funding world, following its recommended draft for the regulations on DBAs published in July 2012. Third-party litigation funders are worried that the implementation of the recommendations and proposed draft Damages-Based Agreement Regulations 2012 (DBA Regulations) set out by the CJC will leave them at a disadvantage and create an uneven playing field when it comes to them competing for business with solicitors proposing to fund cases under a DBA.

Andrew Keltie, Henry Garfield and Andrew Matheson review recent case law on contempt

The Court of Appeal recently had some damning words for Kazakh businessman Mukhtar Ablyazov in his unsuccessful appeal against a High Court finding of contempt of court. In his judgment, Maurice Kay LJ stated that it would be (JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] at 202):

Kerman & Co

Louise Millington-Roberts reports on the final hearing in The Rugby Football Union v Viagogo

Regular readers may recall my report ‘Converting a Try’, CLJ42, March/April 2012, p8 on The Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd [2011] when, in March 2011, Tugendhat J granted a Norwich Pharmacal Order to the RFU. The order required Viagogo to disclose the identities of the persons or entities that had advertised the sale and/or sold RFU tickets. I also reported on the subsequent appeal, which the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed, and where Viagogo adduced a further ground for resisting the grant of the order, maintaining that the order would constitute an interference with the wrongdoer’s privacy rights.

Sayuri Ganesarajah focuses on the judgment in Jivraj v Hashwani

According to the International Arbitration Survey 2012 conducted by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University, London is the most preferred and widely-used seat of arbitration. London was favoured for its impartial and neutral legal system, national arbitration laws, and encouraging track record for enforcing agreements to arbitrate and arbitral awards.

Matthew Evans examines recent case law on the technical requirements of Part 36

Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules offers parties valuable costs protection, and can put pressure on them to settle. The recent Court of Appeal case of F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy [2012] is a reminder that parties need to be aware (and advised) of the technical requirements of Part 36. This article examines Part 36, and analyses the impact of F&C Alternative Investments. We also briefly examine another Court of Appeal case on the subject: Gibbon v Manchester City Council [2010]. Both Gibbon and F&C Alternative Investments reflect the court’s strong view that formal requirements matter when it comes to making a Part 36 offer.

Simon Readhead QC provides a cautionary warning for the inattentive

Do you doodle in meetings? Should you doodle in meetings? There is both good news and bad.

Alex Fox and Clare Arthurs explore the court’s approach to unfair prejudice claims

The court’s power to provide remedies for shareholders in respect of the way in which a company’s affairs are conducted stems entirely from statute, residing now in ss994-999 of the Companies Act 2006 (the Act). Its purpose is to protect shareholders and provide them with some redress against the company. Given the continued economic doldrums that we are now experiencing, and the government’s new initiative to introduce ‘employee shareholders’, now would seem a good time to take stock of the court’s approach to unfair prejudice claims.