Search results
220 results ordered by
Hong Kong Courts – Expansion of use of remote hearings
As expected, the judiciary in Hong Kong has announced that it will expand the use of remote hearings for civil cases. The first Guidance Note for Remote Hearings for Civil Business in the High Court (Phase 1) came into effect on 3 April 2020. This was during the general adjourned period (GAP), when the courts were generally closed as a result of COVID-19, save for urgent and essential court business. The GAP came to an end on 3 May 2020.
Read moreHong Kong Courts – Closing the GAP
The general adjourned period (GAP), during which the courts in Hong Kong were closed save for urgent and essential court business, started on 29 January 2020 with the early onset of COVID-19 in Hong Kong.
Read moreArbitrable disputes in the context of winding up proceedings
This note discusses two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal of Singapore that dealt with the standard of review to be applied in winding up proceedings where a debtor asserts that there is a dispute which parties agreed to resolve by way of arbitration.
Read moreHigh Court provides a reminder against "over-lawyering" of witness statements
In a reminder not to "over-lawyer" witness statements, a High Court judge has ordered that statements be revised to remove inappropriate content(1).
Read moreGeneral adjournment in Hong Kong does not extend duration of ex parte injunction
In Hong Kong, the courts have generally been closed, save for urgent and essential court business as a result of COVID-19.
Read moreCOVID-19 – Hong Kong Courts set for phased reopening from May
On 22 April 2020, the Hong Kong Judiciary announced that the general adjourned period ("GAP") for court proceedings, which started on 29 January 2020, will end on 3 May 2020. Stressing that the health and safety of court users, the Judiciary's staff and Judges and Judicial Officers ("JJOs") remains paramount, the Judiciary will move to a phased reintroduction of general business.
Read moreA Review in Confidence: Modernising the Law of Breach of Confidence in Singapore
The elements for a claim for breach of confidence were trite, having been established more than 50 years ago in the English case of Coco v. AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1) and affirmed in numerous Singapore decisions (2) .
Read moreHong Kong Courts – In with the old and the new technology
In Re Cyberworks Audio Video Technology Ltd,(1) the High Court of Hong Kong decided that it can, as part of its case management powers and of its own volition, order that a directions hearing take place by means of a telephone conference without the physical presence in court of the parties or their legal representatives.
Read moreHong Kong courts begin use of video conferencing
Given the extended general adjourned period (GAP), during which the courts in Hong Kong have been closed except for urgent and essential court business, the judiciary has adopted an incremental approach to the use of technology for remote hearings.
Read moreHong Kong Court of Appeal hears appeal using video conferencing
On 2 April 2020 the Chief Judge of the High Court issued a Guidance Note setting out the practice for remote hearings in the Court of First Instance of the High Court (but not the District Court) using the court's existing video conferencing facilities (VCF). Hard on its heels, on 6 April 2020 the Court of Appeal conducted a hearing by VCF in CSFK v. HWH [2020] HKCA 207.
Read moreCOVID-19: Trials - the show must go on
Judges are taking to heart the HMCTS's guidance focused on encouraging judges to maximise the use of video and telephone hearings using current technology. So, while the theatres in the UK remain closed, the theatres of justice continue with their activities.
Read moreCOVID-19 – Hong Kong Courts handling urgent and essential matters
On 8 April 2020, the Hong Kong Judiciary announced that the general adjourned period ("GAP") for court proceedings will continue until at least 3 May 2020. During the GAP, court registries and offices are, for the most part, closed. However, the GAP does not apply to "urgent and essential court hearings and/or matters".
Read moreCOVID-19: Virtual hearings - what we've learned
Remote court hearings have very quickly become the "new normal". We've taken part in a fair few in recent weeks so wanted to share some practical tips that we hope will help those about to enter the virtual courtroom….
Read moreCOVID-19 - The official guidance on remote hearings; early engagement is key to success
COVID-19. The courts are trying to conduct "business as usual" as much as possible in this challenging climate. The latest official guidance, published on Friday, covers remote hearings in all Civil Courts in England & Wales; it relates to all types of hearings – applications, trials and appeals.
Read moreCOVID-19: Impact on court hearings and successful virtual mediations
As anticipated, the Courts are now moving to a (mainly) remote working basis.
Read moreBeware: English jurisdiction clauses do not mean choice of English law
Where parties have agreed in a contract that the English courts will have jurisdiction in the event of a dispute, it does not automatically follow that English law will be the governing law. A party recently found this out, to its cost, when a different governing law clause meant an expired limitation period. This case demonstrates that those entering into contractual agreements should carefully consider a choice of law clause that specifically designates the laws of a country that suits them. GDE LLC v Anglia Autoflow Limited.
Read moreHigh Court: Claimants' litigation funder ordered to provide security for costs
The High Court has handed down a significant judgment giving important guidance on the Court’s approach to issues of costs-sharing and security for costs against litigation funders in large multi-party claims. The judgment will be a key touchpoint in this developing area of law. RPC acts for Ingenious in the proceedings. The judgment citation is [2020] EWHC 235 (Ch).
Read moreEquitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty: a question of loss?
A director who extracted money from a company by way of sham invoices may have a defence to an equitable compensation claim for misappropriation of the company's funds, if the director could have lawfully transferred the funds to the same recipients for no value. The Court of Appeal explored this possibility in Auden McKenzie (Pharma Division) Ltd v Patel
Read moreLenders face more allegations about their actions on restructuring
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.
Read moreCovertly obtained information cannot be deployed until its legitimacy is resolved
Read moreBitcoin is 'property' and can therefore be subject of proprietary injunction
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.
Read moreBreaking news - dominant purpose test extends to legal advice privilege
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.
Read moreFreezing orders: when will past conduct show a real risk of dissipation?
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.
Read moreGuaranteed to fail? Oral funding arrangements may be enforceable
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)
Read moreA litigator's quiz: Fourth candle of Advent
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.
Read moreA litigator's quiz: Third candle of Advent
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?
Read moreDuty of care can exist between parent company and third parties affected by subsidiaries' actions
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.
Read moreFurther welcome news from the FCA – this time on co-manufacturing
Following on from our earlier blog, our review of the FCA's 'Discussion Paper' (DP24/1) continues, this time considering the rules relating to co-manufacturers of insurance products.
Read morePotential deregulation and a pragmatic approach to commercial insurance – welcome news from the FCA
The FCA has published a 'Discussion Paper' (DP24/1) seeking feedback on its rules on commercial insurance including in respect of the types of commercial customers in-scope, co-manufacturing of products and bespoke insurance products.
Read moreNew Labour government – what is in store for the UK?
We have a new Labour Party government for the first time in 14 years. The new government has already made various announcements, with more set to follow in the coming days, and then we have the King’s Speech on 17 July, when the Labour Party will set out its opening legislative agenda – but what can we expect from the new government impacting services regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, pensions and accountants?
Read moreThe Terminator: A Tale of Two Insurance Claims
It is 2029, and the Machines are losing their war with Humanity. What to do?
Read moreProject Angel Bidco v AXIS - what are the key takeaways for warranty and indemnity insurers?
On 31 October 2023, the London Circuit Commercial Court gave judgment in Project Angel Bidco Limited (in administration) v Axis Managing Agency Limited & Ors (2023) EWHC 2649.
Read moreWordings do matter
Contract drafting has been brass tacks for lawyers since the dawn of time. In its broadest terms, it involves putting the scope of a bargain reached between parties into clear and effective language.
Read moreStorm Babet, flooding and the insurance implications
Subtropical cyclone Storm Babet is currently responsible for over 350 flood warnings in the UK, with more flood warnings expected later this week.
Read moreGetting to know Global Access Lawyers
Global Access Lawyers brings together some of the worlds leading insurance law practices. In the following pages get to know the different law firms that make up Global Access, who we are, where we operate and the kind of work we do. We hope you find this useful to understand the international reach of Global Access.
Read moreCourt of Appeal finds in favour of FSCS on scope of the Policyholder Protection Rules (PRR)
Tamsin Hyland explores the recent judgment of JR (On the application of Manchikalapati v FSCS [2023] EWCA Civ 1006) and its relevance to insurance policy wording.
Read moreWhat does the FRC's proposed corporate governance overhaul mean for D&O exposures?
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has now published the draft new UK Corporate Governance Code following the Government's requirements that it incorporate more robust internal control and prudent and effective risk management requirements. The deadline for responses to the FRC's consultation is 13 September 2023.
Read moreNew developments in AI may put law firms at greater risk of phishing fraud
As the computing power of Artificial Intelligence continues to grow exponentially, we consider how generative technology may expand the reach of traditional phishing frauds aimed at law firms.
Read moreAre pension fund trustees at risk of legal action following UK gilts’ meltdown?
Are pension fund trustees conducting liability-driven investing at risk of legal action following the volatility in the UK gilt market?
Read moreIs the FCA to blame for BSPS? MPs seem to think so
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) yesterday published a report entitled "Investigation into the British Steel Pension Scheme". The report makes a number of recommendations in light of its investigations in to the FCA's conduct and regulatory oversight at the time of the issues arising from the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) and in particular the decision by 7,834 members to transfer to a personal pension arrangement. The report is heavily critical of the FCA's handling of BSPS and its regulatory oversight of the defined benefit transfer market generally. Given the request in the report for an update from the FCA on its progress on the various recommendations and conclusions in 6 months' time, we wait to see how the FCA reacts to yet further criticism of its handling of BSPS at a time when it is reviewing responses to the consumer redress scheme consultation.
Read moreSIPPs and FOS - does the Rowanmoor decision change anything?
Last week FOS published a decision it reached last year in a complaint against a SIPP provider involving advised sales. The FOS upheld the complaint, finding that the SIPP provider should have rejected business from the regulated financial adviser, CIB Life and Pensions Limited (CIB), given, broadly, red flags available to the SIPP provider with respect to the operation of CIB's business model including that CIB was not advising on the ultimate investment within the SIPP and as a result such introductions involved a significant risk of consumer detriment. The decision has received quite a bit of press attention - but has it moved the dial for SIPP complaints before FOS or not?
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here