Search results
251 results ordered by
Parliamentary 'wash up' – which Bills made it through?
On 22 May 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that a General Election will take place on 4 July 2024. Parliament was then prorogued on 24 May 2024 which allowed a mere 2 days for 'wash up' - the process by which outstanding bills may be rushed through the parliamentary process.
Read moreGoing Green – staying on the right side of competition law
Environmental issues are high on the agenda for many consumers and businesses alike. They are also increasingly an area of focus for competition authorities around the world, including the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), who are keen to ensure that competition law concerns do not unnecessarily prevent businesses from collaborating legitimately on environmental sustainability initiatives.
Read moreThe Times recognises RPC among Best Law Firms 2024
International law firm, RPC, has been recognised by The Times in its Best Law Firms 2024 report, an annual ranking of the top 250 law firms in England and Wales.
Read moreRICS disciplinary process: an overview for surveyors
Download our complete guide to the procedure involved in a disciplinary investigation against a chartered surveyor.
Read moreSnapshots Summer 2024
A roundup of key legal developments for the modern commercial lawyer.
Read moreSnapshots Spring 2024
A roundup of key legal developments for the modern commercial lawyer.
Read moreSnapshots Winter 2023
A roundup of key legal developments for the modern commercial lawyer.
Read moreSnapshots Autumn 2023
A roundup of key legal developments for the modern commercial lawyer.
Read moreSnapshots Summer 2023
A roundup of key legal developments for the modern commercial lawyer.
Read moreSnapshots Spring 2023
A roundup of key legal developments for the modern commercial lawyer.
Read moreSnapshots Winter 2022
A roundup of key legal developments for the modern commercial lawyer.
Read moreRansoms and Sanctions and Fines (oh my!)
Ransomware attacks are happening all the time. Just the other month, the Cl0p ransomware gang claimed responsibility for the exploitation of a zero-day vulnerability in the MOVEit Transfer tool.
Read moreRansoms and Sanctions and Fines (oh my!)
Ransomware attacks are happening all the time. Just the other month, the Cl0p ransomware gang claimed responsibility for the exploitation of a zero-day vulnerability in the MOVEit Transfer tool.
Read moreCAT Collective Proceedings - Summer 2024 update
Developments in the UK’s competition collective proceedings regime continue apace with new claims recently issued in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
Read moreUK authorities seize £179m from suspected criminals – up 16% in a year
UK authorities, including the SFO, HMRC and police, seized £179m last year[1] from criminals using draconian Confiscation Orders – an increase of 16% on £154m a year earlier, according to analysis of new data by international law firm RPC.
Read moreThe CAT's new approach: I can't afford a carriage (dispute)
Since the collective proceedings regime in the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) kicked off, a number of carriage disputes have arisen. So-called 'carriage disputes' arise when there are two or more competing proposed class representatives (PCRs) seeking certification (and therefore 'carriage') of overlapping class actions.
Read more2023 Update - CAT Collective Proceedings
A new era of consumer-focussed competition class actions is now well underway. It kicked off with the first collective proceedings order (CPO) granted by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in Merricks in the summer of 2021, opening the gates for further collective claims to be certified.
Read moreBanking and Financial Markets Litigation Update - Summer 2024
This update is brought to you by RPC’s top tier banking and financial markets disputes practice in London, with specialists in all areas of financial markets litigation (and arbitration) and a wealth of expertise including frequent involvement in the most complex, high-value, and high-profile disputes in the sphere. Here, we take a look at some of the most important judgments in recent months.
Read moreCrypto damages quantification: valuation at the date of breach or date of judgment?
In Southgate v. Graham [2024] EWHC 1692 (Ch), the High Court addressed an appeal from the County Court concerning inter alia the appropriate date for assessing damages in a cryptocurrency loan dispute. Initially, the County Court determined that the damages should be based on the cryptocurrency's fiat value at the breach date. Due to the volatility of the cryptocurrency, this decision would have resulted in significantly lower fiat damages award than if the valuation were based on a later date. The High Court allowed the valuation date part of the appeal, directing a further hearing to establish the appropriate date.
Read moreSummary judgment against persons unknown – a tale of two crypto judgments
Two recent crypto judgements in the High Court, Mooij v Persons Unknown (February 2024) and Boonyaem v Persons Unknown (December 2023) reached different conclusions regarding whether a summary judgment could be granted against unidentified (and unidentifiable) fraudsters, with Mooji deciding 'yes' and Boonyaem deciding 'no'.
Read moreSupreme Court confirms no knowing receipt claim where equitable interest is destroyed: Byers v Saudi National Bank
In Byers v Saudi National Bank, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts by holding that a claim for knowing receipt cannot be made if a claimant’s equitable interest in the property in question has been extinguished by the time of the defendant’s knowing receipt of the property.
Read moreMerchants Beat Venice: Court of Appeal finds that local authority of Venice did have capacity to enter into Interest Rate Swaps
In a significant judgment in Banca Intesa Sanpaolo and Dexia Credit Local SA v Comune di Venezia [2023] EWCA Civ 1482, the Court of Appeal overturned the findings of the High Court
Read moreBinance successfully challenges interim proprietary injunction over deposited cryptoassets
In Piroozzadeh v Persons Unknown and Others [2023] EWHC 1024 (Ch), the cryptocurrency exchange Binance successfully applied to discharge an interim proprietary injunction obtained by a claimant whose misappropriated cryptoassets had been deposited at the exchange. This is the first recorded case of an exchange successfully having discharged such an injunction.
Read moreHigh Court favours English jurisdiction in bribery claim brought by Kuwaiti pension fund
The High Court recently rejected an application, brought by two defendants to an alleged bribery claim advanced by a Kuwaiti pension fund, that the claim should be heard before the Swiss courts, holding that England was the proper jurisdiction both in order to avoid the risk of fragmentation of proceedings, and in view of the close connection of the claim to England.
Read moreConsidering bringing an RFI application? Is it strictly necessary?
Andrew Ayres KC and Andrew Dinsmore (Twenty Essex), instructed by Parham Kouchikali and Suzie Kurdi of this firm, successfully resisted a Request for Further Information (RFI) in the High Court.
Read moreCourt of Appeal rejects timing and informed consent defences in bond bribery case
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal decided in Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited (in liquidation) v James David Hadley and others that pleaded defences to a bribery claim were so fanciful as to entitle the claimant to summary judgment.
Read moreHigh Court rejects Group Litigation Order in FSMA litigation as it would not further the Overriding Objective
In a recent decision in Edward Moon & Ors v Link Fund Solutions, Mr Justice Trower dismissed an application by two groups of claimants, declining to make the Group Litigation Order (GLO) sought.
Read moreNo loss? No Quincecare claim … the Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank v HSBC
The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank plc, deciding that there was no pecuniary loss suffered by the Claimant and therefore no basis for a Quincecare claim.
Read moreNo need for perfection: ISDA Master Agreement default notice still valid where some errors made
The High Court has decided that a default notice under an ISDA Master Agreement is still valid even if it does not contain wholly accurate statements of the amount of the payment not made, the confirmation of the trade, or the currency of the payment.
Read moreBanking and financial litigation markets update - Summer 2022
In this overview we look at some of the most important judgments in recent months in the area of banking and financial markets litigation.
Read moreSilicon Valley, Signature and Credit Suisse: what do they all share(holder) in common?
In what has been termed "the biggest banking crisis since 2008", both Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank have collapsed, and Credit Suisse has been rescued. Whether more banks are to follow suit is yet to be seen.
Read moreHong Kong data protection: cross-border transfers of personal data
We take a closer look at businesses' obligations under Hong Kong law to protect personal data in a cross-border transfer and the new recommended model contractual clauses.
Read moreThe High Court continues interim anti-harassment injunction
At a return date hearing on 12 July 2024, Aidan Eardley KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) continued until trial or further order an anti-harassment injunction granted to prevent the Defendant from, amongst other things, approaching or contacting the Claimant.
Read moreThe Supreme Court clarifies the law on the recovery of damages for non-pecuniary damage arising out of a maliciously false statement
The Claimant was an employee of the second defendant, LCA, a recruitment agency owned and operated by the first defendant. After leaving LCA, the Claimant was employed by another recruitment agency and began targeting LCA's clients. LCA's owner told two third parties, one of whom was the Claimant’s new line manager and the other a client of LCA, that by doing this the Claimant was in breach of her contract of employment with LCA. In fact, there was no term of that contract (as the owner of LCA knew) which prohibited the claimant from soliciting business from LCA’s clients.
Read moreThe Model Anti-SLAPP Law: an overview
Following the Government's response to the SLAPP consultation in the summer, the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition (a working group that includes English PEN, the Foreign Policy Centre and Index on Censorship, "the Coalition") has this week published a model Anti-SLAPP law, which has been endorsed by a collection of free speech and anti-corruption organisations, journalists, editors and lawyers.
Read moreThe November 2023 AI safety summit and the UK's direction of travel
The government has confirmed that the UK AI safety summit will be held at Bletchley Park on 1 and 2 November 2023.
Read moreTelecoms supply agreement excludes "loss of profit" claim under "anticipated profits" liability exclusion (EE v Virgin Mobile)
In line with a number of recent cases, in EE Limited v Virgin Mobile Telecoms Limited [2023] EWHC 1989 (TCC) the courts have shown that parties generally cannot avoid clear wording contained in exclusion clauses in order to recover losses that have been expressly excluded (in this case, loss of profits).
Read moreRolls-Royce entitled to hit the brakes in dispute over termination of a software services agreement (Topalsson v Rolls-Royce)
In Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited [2023] EWHC 1765 (TCC), the High Court has provided useful guidance on how to determine whether a software implementation timeline agreed by the parties is binding, when implementation is considered complete and in what circumstances failing to complete implementation by the contractual deadlines entitles the customer to terminate the contract.
Read moreA narrow escape – software services provider entitled to rely on single aggregate liability cap (Drax v Wipro)
When it comes to bespoke software development projects, a lot can go wrong. There's risk for the customer such as project delays, software defects, functionality issues and a lack of meeting of minds in terms of project requirements.
Read moreSnapshot on key 'green claims' developments
As consumers increasingly demand more sustainable products, businesses are innovating to reduce their environmental impact. This has driven an increase in the use of 'green' marketing claims and, with it, increased scrutiny by consumer regulators seeking to protect consumers from the risk of 'greenwashing'. Significant developments are ongoing in this area, both in the UK and the EU.
Read moreProtests on the rise – are you covered?
With public focus on political issues running high, the possibility of protests interrupting your business should be on every retailer and consumer brand's risk management agenda.
Read moreLifting the veil on cyber threats for retailers
Almost all UK businesses (approximately 98%) now operate online in some capacity, benefiting hugely from an increased use of online websites, social media accounts, and online banking
Read moreMcDonald's BIG MAC trade mark – General Court gives decision on evidence of genuine use
In a decision that, practically, provides for only a tiny loss of protection for the behemoth brand and trade mark, on 5 June 2024 the European General Court (General Court) partially revoked McDonald's BIG MAC trade mark (the EUTM) in the EU (Supermac's (Holdings) Ltd v EUIPO (Case T 58/23)).
Read moreGinfringement: Success for M&S in the Court of Appeal in registered design spat with Aldi
M&S and Aldi's gin bottle battle over design rights has reached a conclusion (for now) as the Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the IPEC's decision that Aldi's bottle infringed M&S' design.
Read moreClear as gin: M&S and Aldi take liquor bottle battle to the Court of Appeal
Intellectual property enthusiasts' favourite supermarket adversaries were back at loggerheads this week as M&S and Aldi appear before the Court of Appeal. The pair sought to thrash out a first instance decision handed down in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) regarding alleged infringement of M&S' registered design rights in a gin bottle.
Read moreThaler v Comptroller [2023] UKSC 49: the UKSC rules that AI cannot be an 'inventor'
To the surprise of no one, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has finally ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be an inventor for the purposes of UK patent law. This judgment accords with the decisions of the lower courts in the UK and the initial ruling of the UKIPO. It also reflects similar findings from most of courts around the world where the claimant, Dr Thaler, brought similar actions.
Read moreGenerative AI and intellectual property rights—the UK government's position
The IPO is to produce a code of practice by the summer that will provide guidance to support AI firms in accessing copyright protected works as an input to their models.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here