Search results
162 results ordered by
The 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 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 moreSRA consults the legal sector on proposed changes to their fining framework
The SRA is conducting a consultation from the 28 June to 20 September 2024 on their proposed changes to the SRA Fining Guidance. The regulator is seeking feedback in response to the new unlimited fining powers granted under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA 2023).
Read moreSRA fining powers – putting the SDT out of business?
The SRA is on a mission to increase its powers to levy financial penalties. The last 12 months have seen a substantial increase in its fining powers, and a grant of unlimited fining powers in matters relating to financial crime and SLAPPs is imminent. The SRA has now dramatically upped the ante, seeking the power to levy unlimited fines in all cases of serious misconduct. With the Legal Services Board appearing supportive, the proposal has the potential profoundly to affect the enforcement of professional discipline within the profession.
Read moreEnhanced Regulatory Supervision of Asset Managers in Europe – Greenwashing Risks
A common methodology has been developed by ESMA to allow national European regulators to share knowledge and experiences to facilitate convergence in how they supervise sustainability related disclosures.
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 moreCosts recovered in the Small Claims Track from an unreasonable Litigant in Person
Most (if not all) litigators will be familiar with the challenge of being on the other side of a claim brought by a litigant in person ("LiP"). The courts expect practitioners to be sensitive to their opponent's lack of legal expertise and familiarity with court rules, but judges have also been clear that they expect all parties – including LiPs – to follow the rules regardless of their legal representation.
Read moreSRA issues Warning Notice on solicitors' involvement in SLAPPs
SLAPPs (aka 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation') is a term coined in the USA. They are becoming the object of increasing concern over here too.
Read moreHong Kong – Claim pleading duty of care against auditor struck out for "putting the cart before the horse"
In Chan Kam Cheung v Ronnie K W Choi & Anor [2022] HKCFI 3028, a judge upheld a master's (judicial officer's) decision to strike out the plaintiff shareholder's action against the former auditors of the company.
Read moreSolicitors Entitled to Insurance Cover for Liability for Fees: Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Limited & Others v Tughans (a firm)
In a recent judgment, Foxton J held that a claim for damages against a firm of solicitors for fees which it was contractually entitled to was covered under the firm's professional indemnity insurance. He held that it did not matter if the fees were obtained through the solicitor's fraudulent misrepresentation provided that the solicitor had done what was required under the contract to earn the fees. The decision will not be welcomed by insurers.
Read moreShorter time limit for Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 claims
A recent judgment has reduced the limitation period for third parties to make direct claims against insurers under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 when compared to claims under the predecessor 1930 Act. The decision will make it easier for insurers to defend such claims on limitation grounds.
Read moreRisky Business: what to do when former clients ask further questions
In Spire Property Development LLP & Anor v Withers LLP [2022] EWCA Civ 970, the Court of Appeal considered the scope of a solicitor's duty when a former client posed questions to a solicitor concerning a transaction after the retainer had ended. The judgment will be of interest to solicitors who are asked for advice in circumstances where no retainer exists.
Read moreDouble warning for legal professionals: do not cut corners with disclosure
Further to a recent decision made by the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service, the Bar Standards Board has suspended a "top criminal silk" from practice on grounds of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to disclose material evidence during criminal proceedings in 2007. The decision, and the judgment made by the Court of Appeal in those proceedings, reiterates the importance of the ongoing obligation on legal professionals to give disclosure and comply with their duties to the court.
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 morePost COVID-19 UK: What Will the Professional Negligence Claims Landscape Look Like?
The cost of living is at an all-time high, with interest rates increasing and inflation currently sitting at around 9%. The chances of a recession in the UK over the next two years have increased. It will come as no surprise that we expect the number of claims against law firms to rise as the economic downturn takes hold, as was the case in 2008 and recessions before it.
Read moreImportant Court of Appeal clarity on the operation of s1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
A recent Court of Appeal decision (in which RPC acted for the successful barrister Appellant) provides important clarification on the operation of section 1(4) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (“the Act”). Although the matter concerned a contribution claim by a solicitor against a barrister brought pursuant to the Act, the decision is of wider relevance/application for litigation practitioners and the Insurance market.
Read moreThe X-Client Files: who owns a solicitor's file
It's a perennial headache for solicitors: what exactly am I supposed to do when a client asks me for 'their file'?
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 moreGood faith does not go both ways
It is common knowledge that solicitors owe fiduciary duties to their clients but what about the other way around? Do clients owe a duty of good faith to their solicitors (as an implied term of the retainer)?
Read moreThe Future of Insolvency Regulation
On 21 December 2021 the Government launched a consultation into the future of insolvency regulation. The changes proposed in the consultation document will have a wide ranging impact on the insolvency profession (and its insurers) with the proposals including: the direct regulation of insolvency firms, the introduction of a single regulatory body with powers to order compensation against insolvency practitioners and firms, a new additional requirements regime, changes to the bond regime and a public register of insolvency practitioners and firms. Many of the changes proposed require primary legislation and so it may be some time before the changes to take effect (if adopted). But there does appear to be some wind behind these proposals given they follow on from the Call for Evidence in 2019 and a more general focus on insolvency issues in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Read moreFOS proposals to clear the back-log - attractive or not?
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has proposed a temporary approach to the classification of certain complaints in an attempt to alleviate their complaints backlog exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The approach could see firms looking to pro-actively resolve complaints before a defined cut off date before FOS reaches a decision so that the complaint is recorded separately and not as a "change in outcome" (i.e. where a complaint has been rejected by a business and upheld by FOS). The consultation was open for a short two-week period between 4 and 18 October 2021.
Read moreAggregation under the solicitors' minimum terms: are primary layer insurers ready for potentially limitless liability?
In Baines v Dixon Coles & Gill the Court of Appeal has substantially limited the extent to which claims against solicitors can aggregate.
Read moreNo objection: When is a party barred from challenging jurisdiction where it continues in the arbitration?
The High Court has provided invaluable guidance on the factors that it will consider when determining when a party is barred from challenging jurisdiction under s. 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) by failing to raise an objection while continuing to take part in the arbitration.
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 moreNew digital markets regime guidance published for consultation
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024. This article considers who will be impacted by the new digital markets regime, the requirements it will introduce, and how it may be enforced, and summarises the CMA’s new draft guidance under consultation on how it intends to implement the regime in practice.
Read moreThe Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act – the Competition Perspective
This article considers the key changes to general competition law under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act which received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024 and is expected to enter into force in the Autumn.
Read moreRecent CAT rulings consider distribution concerns
With two collective settlements now approved by the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and the outcome of the first substantive trial in the case of Le Patourel v BT anticipated shortly, it is an important time for the competition collective proceedings regime as the first sums start to be paid out to affected classes.
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 moreUK CAT Collective Proceedings Spring 2024 Update
Last year, we reported on what was then a fledgling collective proceedings regime in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Our 2023 update is here. Since then, the competition collective proceedings regime has continued to grow at pace, notwithstanding the seismic Supreme Court decision in PACCAR affecting the underlying funding arrangements which underpin the entire collective proceedings landscape.
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 moreBT case may shape UK class action landscape
In January, the trial in Justin Le Patourel v. BT Group PLC[1] commenced in the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal, or CAT. The trial is scheduled to be heard over eight weeks.
Read moreDelay at your peril: High Court holds that two week delay causes party to lose right to object to irregularity in arbitration
In Radisson Hotels v Hayat Otel, (1). the High Court found that the claimant ("Radisson") had lost its right to challenge an arbitration award (the "Award") by continuing to take part in the proceedings for a period of two weeks after becoming aware of improper conduct by one of the arbitrators (the "Arbitrator"). The court also rejected Radisson's subsequent application seeking to redact the identities of the parties and any details which might identify them in the judgment, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the underlying arbitration (2). While the judge acknowledged Radisson's desire to keep the arbitration confidential, this ultimately did not outweigh the general public interest in open justice.
Read moreBest of both worlds with PD57AC? High Court allows opinion evidence in factual witness statement
The High Court has allowed the witness statement of a factual witness even though the claimant had previously intended to instruct him as an expert and his statement contained opinion evidence (Polypipe Limited v Peter Russell Davidson) ([2023] EWHC 1691 (Comm). The judge confirmed that such evidence is admissible where the witness is suitably qualified, but it will not be accorded the same weight as a formal expert report. Separately, this appears to be the first reported case in which the court accepted that permission for an extension to the deadline for expert reports could be made conditional on disclosure of any unserved report(s), though the court declined to prescribe that condition in this case.
Read moreScots law decision confirms that privilege doesn’t change its spots
The Scots law judgment in University of Dundee v Chakraborty [2023] CSIH 22 has reiterated that whether or not a document is protected by legal professional privilege is determined at the point in time at which the document is created. A non-privileged document cannot later acquire privileged status. The judgment also made certain findings about waiver of privilege which may be more controversial, particularly in the context of regulatory investigations.
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 moreSingapore Court of Appeal Sends Acceleration of Interest Payment Clause To The Penalty Box
Commercial contracts commonly include clauses providing for liquidated damages, accelerated repayment or late payment interest in the event one party breaches the contract.
Read moreCase Note: Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] SGCA 1 – Examining the law governing arbitrability at the pre-award stage
The Court of Appeal ("CA") in the case of Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] SGCA 1 ("Anupam Mittal") had to determine a previously undecided point of law in Singapore: which system of law governs the arbitrability of a dispute at the pre-award stage, i.e., the law of the seat of the arbitration (lex fori) or the law governing the arbitration agreement.
Read moreDoctrine of separability in arbitration: should the arbitration agreement and the main contract "sink or swim" together or alone?
In DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd, the Court of Appeal considered the arbitration law doctrine of separability.
Read moreArbitration jurisdictional challenge no bar to English court ordering compliance with a tribunal peremptory order
The Court of Appeal has found that the English court may grant an order requiring a party to comply with a peremptory order of a tribunal before the determination of an outstanding challenge to jurisdiction of the tribunal.
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 moreHong Kong – Parties agreed settlement terms without formal settlement agreement
In MSB International Ltd v Lok & Anor , the Court of First Instance of the High Court found that the parties had agreed a full and final settlement of all their claims in two related proceedings, by way of an exchange of without prejudice written communications between their legal representatives, although no formal draft settlement agreement referring to more comprehensive release terms and stated to be "subject to contract" had been agreed.
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 moreNo need for late night panic: Court of Appeal decides that midnight e-filing is permissible
The Court of Appeal recently considered the short, but important, procedural question of whether a document may be filed electronically at any time up to midnight on the date by which the document is due.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here