This category can only be viewed by members.
Andrew Archer counts every second of a recent decision on limitation ‘Matthew concerned the defendant trustees’ alleged failure to claim under a court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement by the “Bar Date” of 2 June 2011.’ For both Cinderella and the parties in Matthew v Sedman [2019], the clock striking midnight was a make-or-break moment. Matthew is …
Continue reading "Limitation: The stroke of midnight – from writs to rags"
This post is only available to members.
Richard Swan looks at the implications of a recent Supreme Court judgment ‘In modern litigation it is increasingly common for jurisdictional challenges and their associated arguments, tests and preliminary issues to turn into mini trials.’ The Supreme Court has criticised litigants for the way in which jurisdictional challenges are being conducted. Handing down judgment in …
Continue reading "Jurisdiction: Sizeable submissions"
This post is only available to members.
Thomas Williams, Anna Booth and Michael Lee report on a ground-breaking enforcement of a UK judgment in India ‘While the Code offered a new and (at that point) untested route to enforce a debt owed and evidenced by a foreign judgment, Stanbic opted to follow that procedure rather than enforce its foreign judgment directly.’ Victory …
Continue reading "Enforcement: Follow the money"
This post is only available to members.
Ekaterina Pakerova peers down the rabbit hole to consider ownership and control in freezing injunctions ‘Even if the respondent was the sole shareholder this cannot be taken to mean that they own or are in any way entitled to the company’s assets.’ In Alice in Wonderland, the Cheshire Cat famously disappears leaving only its smile. …
Continue reading "Injunctions: Nohow or contrariwise?"
This post is only available to members.
David Cook seeks certainty from the Supreme Court ‘Conventional wisdom and common practice over time had effectively distilled Lord Dunedin’s Dunlop tests into an unhelpful, over-simplified distinction.’ It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, but it is no laughing matter that a recent run of Supreme Court cases serve to demonstrate that conventional …
Continue reading "Practice: When is the law not the law?"
This post is only available to members.
Michael Bennett blows the dust off arbitral appeals on a point of law ‘In many ways the legal position on appeals relating to points of law has come full circle. Following the 1698 Act the (eventually) settled position was that appeals would only be allowed where the error was apparent on the face of the …
Continue reading "Arbitration: Unappealing decisions"
This post is only available to members.
Nicole Finlayson and Clare Arthurs consider the de-throning of a judgment on loss of a chance ‘While the Court of Appeal may have had persuasive and forcefully expressed views regarding why it, faced with the same material, would have come to a different conclusion, that did not support a conclusion that the trial judge had …
Continue reading "Insights by Penningtons Manches: A song of coal and ire"
This post is only available to members.
Stewart Hey, Simon Heatley and Iona Macmillan Douglas brush the dust off without prejudice privilege ‘There was no dispute that the relevant correspondence was without prejudice (WP). The question for the court was whether any exception to the rule applied.’ Legal professional privilege has been in the spotlight (and very rarely out of it) in …
Continue reading "Privilege: Making Briggs without Clay"
This post is only available to members.
James Shaw looks at some pleading lessons to be drawn from recent case law ‘The relatively short period for filing a defence under CPR r15.4(1) necessitates a limited obligation to make enquiries of relevant facts not otherwise in defendants’ existing knowledge.’ In England and Wales, parties to litigation are now required to delineate the broad …
Continue reading "Practice: Pleading awful"
This post is only available to members.
Andrew Wanambwa assesses guidance on jurisdiction from the Court of Appeal ‘The facts of Kaefer were complex but the key issue in the case was whether there was a “good arguable case” that two of the defendants, AT1 and Ezion, were parties to a contract and therefore bound by the jurisdiction agreement contained in it.’ …
Continue reading "Jurisdiction: Going out on a limb"
This post is only available to members.
