Search results

Lenders face more allegations about their actions on restructuring

Published on 14 Feb 2020. By Parham Kouchikali, Partner and Joe Cresswell, Senior Associate

Representatives of a lender on a board will not automatically impose directors' duties on the lender, but they may apply where a director's specific instructions have led directly to a breach of fiduciary duty. The High Court recently explored this issue in an appeal in the case of Standish v Royal Bank of Scotland plc.

Covertly obtained information cannot be deployed until its legitimacy is resolved

Published on 07 Feb 2020.

Bitcoin is 'property' and can therefore be subject of proprietary injunction

Published on 03 Feb 2020. By Christopher Whitehouse, Senior Associate

Following recent case law on the matter, the High Court has found that bitcoin can be 'property' and can therefore be the subject of a proprietary injunction.(1) In reaching its conclusion, the court adopted the detailed analysis of the issue set out in the UK Jurisdictional Task Force's November 2019 Legal Statement on Crypto-Assets and Smart Contracts, thereby providing a far more detailed judicial basis for the finding than found in previous cases. The bitcoins at the heart of this case were part of a ransom payment paid to a hacker who installed malware on a company's IT systems.

Breaking news - dominant purpose test extends to legal advice privilege

Published on 31 Jan 2020. By Davina Given, Partner and Joe Cresswell, Senior Associate and Kiran Dhoot, Associate

The Court of Appeal has held that legal advice privilege will apply to communications only if seeking or giving legal advice is their dominant purpose.

Freezing orders: when will past conduct show a real risk of dissipation?

Published on 16 Jan 2020. By Jonathan Cary, Partner

In Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited v Morimoto, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision to discharge a worldwide freezing order. This case provides helpful guidance as to when a respondent's prior conduct may support a finding that a real risk of dissipation exists. WFO; Dissipation; Su.

Guaranteed to fail? Oral funding arrangements may be enforceable

Published on 09 Jan 2020. By Geraldine Elliott, Partner

Funding arrangements should be in writing, or at least impose a primary obligation on the funder to pay. So said the Court of Appeal in exploring whether an oral arrangement to fund a litigant was an unenforceable guarantee or an enforceable agreement to pay in any event (Deepak Abbhi -and- Richard John Slade (t/a Richard Slade and Company)

A litigator's quiz: Fourth candle of Advent

Published on 23 Dec 2019. By Davina Given, Partner

The UK Supreme Court, and Lady Hale's brooch, hit the headlines this year with a landmark constitutional decision on the prorogation of Parliament. Outside that context, however, the Supreme Court has been busy. In this fourth and final part of our Advent quiz, test your knowledge of the key commercial decisions of 2019 and the decisions to look out for in 2020.

A litigator's quiz: Third candle of Advent

Published on 16 Dec 2019.

The third Sunday of Advent was traditionally a time to lift the gloom of Advent and celebrate Christmas to come – and hence was also known as Gaudete (Rejoice!) Sunday or Rose Sunday. So what has there been to celebrate in the legal profession in 2019?

Duty of care can exist between parent company and third parties affected by subsidiaries' actions

Published on 30 Apr 2019. By Parham Kouchikali, Partner

Vedanta(1) is one of three similar cases progressing through the English courts concerning jurisdiction, mass tort claims and the potential liability of an English parent company for the actions of its foreign subsidiaries,(2) the others being Unilever and Dutch Shell.

Judicial developments in recent treaty cases

Published on 06 Sep 2023.

A spate of recent cases concerning the application of double tax treaties has seen the courts and tribunals striving for common¬sense, policy-driven outcomes.

Judicial review: does the Court of Appeal’s decision in Murphy offer taxpayers a glimmer of hope?

Published on 28 Jun 2023. By Adam Craggs, Partner and Liam McKay, Senior Associate

Judicial review provides a constitutionally important judicial check on the exercise of statutory powers by public bodies such as HMRC. However, the wide margin of appreciation afforded to public bodies by the courts, coupled with recent reforms to the judicial review process, make it a remedy of last resort that can be difficult for taxpayers to pursue successfully. In overturning the High Court’s refusal of the taxpayers’ judicial review claim, the Court of Appeal in Murphy v HMRC confirmed that HMRC had breached their legitimate expectation as to the application of an extra-statutory concession. While Murphy is unlikely to be the harbinger of a wholesale rebalancing of the judicial review scales in the taxpayer’s favour, it is a welcome step in the right direction.