This category can only be viewed by members.
Stewart Hey, Rhys Novak and Simon Heatley discover new depths in search orders ‘Search orders by their nature are preservatory and the question of the use of preserved material must be raised specifically with the court.’ A search order is perceived to be one of the most, if not the most, draconian orders the court …
Continue reading "Search orders: Seek and ye shall find"
This post is only available to members.
Keith Oliver, Amy Harvey and Amalia Neenan assess the impact of regulation and civil remedies on crypto-criminality ‘It remains to be seen how these new regulatory efforts will play out in the future, and whether they will have any meaningful impact on curtailing the rapidly increasing level of cryptofraud in the UK.’ 2019 was a …
Continue reading "Regulation: Funny money"
This post is only available to members.
Andrew Ward, Pierre Welch and Leah Alpren-Waterman track time limits in rail franchise public procurement claims ‘If an unsuccessful bidder in a public procurement process is to be free to challenge the lawfulness of the process while it is ongoing, and to undo the result where appropriate, then it is vital that such challenges are …
Continue reading "Limitation: The need for speed"
This post is only available to members.
David Sawtell discusses a free range in the choice of jurisdiction ‘When conducting the enquiry under Art 4(1), the court should carry out an objective assessment of all the factors characterising the contractual relationship and determine which of those factors are the most significant.’ Not all commercial agreements between international parties will expressly state the …
Continue reading "Jurisdiction: A poultry dispute"
This post is only available to members.
Michael Taylor, Gawain Moore, Duncan Lole and Gwendoline Davies weigh up a Court of Appeal decision on the adverse costs liability of litigation funders It is possible to imagine circumstances in which application of the Arkin cap might not be considered “just”, even where a funder has funded only a distinct part of a claimants …
Continue reading "Funding: Hats off"
This post is only available to members.
Robert Danvers reports on dispensing with service ‘The court’s acknowledgement of the unconventional methods of service in Lonestar, which included Flickr, LinkedIn, and Facebook Messenger, will evince arguments for the adoption of more technologically sophisticated methods of communication in court proceedings.’ Service of the claim form triggers the court’s jurisdiction and from this date, the …
Continue reading "Practice: Your serve"
This post is only available to members.
Giles Tagg and Zak Mehmood report on a recent costs judgment ‘Primus argued that a proportional costs order would be appropriate, submitting that Triumph brought forward three claims, one of which was unreasonably brought and led to identifiable, substantial and severable costs.’ The recent case of Triumph Controls UK Ltd v Primus International Holding Co …
Continue reading "Costs: Triumph(ant)?"
This post is only available to members.
Peter Brewer considers the consequences of misconduct ‘Winding up a company because the directors have fallen out can affect a lot of innocent people and so it is not a remedy that the court grants freely.’ Law students will remember the maxim ‘he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands’. What this …
Continue reading "Shareholder disputes: Getting your hands dirty"
This post is only available to members.
Clare Arthurs and Nicole Finlayson peer into their contractual crystal ball ‘The parties simply had not turned their minds to the set of circumstances that actually arose, ie a sale at a sum other than the sum contemplated.’ The facts of Barton v Gwyn-Jones [2019] appear straightforward. When Mr Barton verbally contracted with Foxpace Ltd …
Continue reading "Insights by Penningtons Manches Cooper: Second sight or hindsight?"
This post is only available to members.
David Hall, Tom Whittaker and Harry Jewson condense the lessons to be learned five years post-Braganza ‘In those cases where a Braganza term has been implied, there is a clear justification that the term is necessary in order to prevent, or protect against, an abuse of power by the decision-maker.’ In Braganza v BP Shipping …
Continue reading "Contractual discretion: The age of reason?"
This post is only available to members.
