Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

The Commercial Litigation Journal: September/October 2014
Ron Cheriyan

Ron Cheriyan looks at recent developments in flight delay claims

First we had road traffic accident (RTA) claims. Next there were payment protection insurance (PPI) claims. The latest compensation frenzy centres on flight delay claims. Air passengers, frustrated by such delays, are now suing the airlines in a bid to obtain compensation. But what exactly is the consumer’s new weapon of choice?

Brioney Thomas reviews recent case law on drafting notices

Recent cases have provided a reminder of the importance of the choice of language used when drafting. In particular, the courts have looked again at the distinction between wording in relation to notices which are classed as ‘mandatory’, ‘directory’ or ‘permissive’.

Giles Hutt and Alex Sciannaca examine Part 36 and discuss possible reform

One section of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that is generally thought to work well, but is clearly in need of a spring clean, is Part 36, which governs formal offers to settle. These are the offers that can alter fundamentally the costs order that a court makes if they are not accepted and, as a result, a case goes all the way to summary judgment or trial.

Conrad Walker and Helen Rowlands report on a recent High Court ruling clarifying the scope of ‘proceedings’ and ‘court’ in Articles 27 and 30 of the Lugano Convention

The Lugano Convention governs issues of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between EU member states and European Free Trade Association countries, other than Liechtenstein. A fundamental principle of the Convention is to limit the possibility of concurrent proceedings in different jurisdictions, thereby reducing the risk of irreconcilable judgments. The recent High Court ruling in Lehman Brothers Finance AG v Klaus Tschira Stiftung GmbH [2014] on the scope of ‘proceedings’ and ‘court’ in Articles 27 and 30 of the Convention is a pragmatic decision, consistent with the overall aim of the Convention.

Mary Gibbons

In her second article Mary Gibbons continues her report on the consequences of NML Capital v Argentina

The case of NML Capital, Ltd v the Republic of Argentina [2014], which was featured in the July/August 2014 edition of this journal (‘Last stand at the OK Corral?’ by Mary Gibbons, CLJ56, p8), continues to work its way through the New York courts. Various applications have been made in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and several appeals are now underway arising out of that court’s rulings. In parallel, proceedings brought by certain hedge funds are continuing in Belgium against the Bank of New York Mellon (the indenture trustee) and Euroclear, and have now been instituted in England against the Bank of New York Mellon and the Bank of New York Depository (Nominees) Ltd. Both actions arise in the context of Argentinian English law euro-denominated debt.

Emma Davies and Clare Arthurs analyse the new streamlined Guidance for the Instruction of Expert Witnesses post-Mitchell and Jackson

It cannot come as a surprise that the revised ‘Guidance for the Instruction of Experts in Civil Claims’, published by the Civil Justice Council last month, has a definite flavour of Jackson about it.

Claire Curtis considers the rise of shareholder activism and how to avoid costly court proceedings

Shareholder activism has been on the rise in the UK over the past five to ten years. It reached a peak in 2012 resulting in the early months being branded the ‘Shareholder Spring’. For many companies and directors this was a long overdue wake-up call, with shareholders voicing their frustrations publicly and making it clear that they are no longer prepared to be silent investors. Dissatisfaction has been brewing since the economic downturn and subsequent fall-out from the financial crisis in 2007 and it has forced companies, notably listed ones, to actively engage with their shareholders.