Our knowledge resources reflect the breadth and depth of our expertise, our insight into the issues which matter to your business, and our understanding of the markets in which you operate.
Qatar National Bank (Q.P.S.C.) ("QNB") has secured a decisive victory in proceedings brought against it in the Kings Bench Division of the English High Court concerning allegations – denied by QNB - that it was connected to certain unlawful acts in Syria (KB-2023-001144 Basel Hashwah and Others v Qatar National Bank (Q.P.S.C.) and Others).
In light of the ongoing uncertainty over increases in US tariffs, we look at the contractual implications for both suppliers and customers involved in international trade. This briefing discusses who pays, including the impact of Incoterms, and whether parties can avoid their contractual obligations based on force majeure clauses, material adverse change (MAC) clauses or frustration.
How concerned should franchisors be about the recent trend of attempted claims against franchisors over misconduct by their franchisees, and which areas of law pose the greatest risk?
Our regular round-up of recent and forthcoming developments in law and practice for in-house counsel.
On 25 March 2025, Green J handed down judgment in Persons Identified in Schedule 1 v Standard Chartered PLC [2025] EWHC 698 (Ch).
All eyes will be on the Supreme Court next week, as appeals in the lead motor finance commission cases, Johnson, Wrench and Hopcraft[1], will be heard over three days from 1-3 April 2025.
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in an appeal from various case management decisions in the long-running Alame & Ors v Shell plc & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 1500 environmental group litigation ("Alame 3"). The decision emphasised the importance of parties' freedom to plead their case in a manner of their own choosing and the difficulties that can arise where claimants face an inequality of arms. The Court heard appeals from the first instance decisions in Alame & Ors v Shell plc & Anor [2023] EWHC 2961 ("Alame 1") and [2024] EWHC 510 ("Alame 2").
Under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 ("CA 2006"), a member of a company may apply to the court for relief by way of petition if they are or have been unfairly prejudiced as a result of an act or omission of the company or the way in which the company's affairs are being or have been conducted. A section 994 petition is the primary procedural tool that minority shareholders can use to seek relief if they are being unfairly prejudiced by the conduct of a majority shareholder or a group of shareholders who are acting as a majority.
The long-awaited Arbitration Act 2025 was signed into law on Monday 24 February 2025. The Act makes a number of targeted improvements to the Arbitration Act 1996, which remains the legal framework for arbitration in this jurisdiction. Its main provisions will enter into force on a date yet to be determined, although the government has confirmed that the new Act "will be commenced through regulations as soon as practicable".
The Court of Appeal in Kumar Limbu & Others v Dyson Technology Limited & Others [2024] EWCA Civ 1564 ("Limbu CoA") has overturned a High Court decision[1] which had declined jurisdiction to hear claims against members of the Dyson Group brought by 24 migrant workers from Nepal and Bangladesh. This means that the claim, which seeks to hold the Defendants liable for alleged forced labour practices and similar human rights abuses at the facilities of one of the Dyson Group's Malaysian suppliers, will now proceed in the English courts.
Parties to a contract often do not give sufficient thought to how they should best resolve their disputes. For instance, parties might always use a template contract that refers disputes to the local courts, but that might not be the best option for each deal or contract. Referring disputes to arbitration can be hugely advantageous; this brief article highlights some of those advantages. However, it is vital that the relevant arbitration clause is drafted properly; an unclear or incomplete arbitration clause is a guaranteed road to preliminary and procedural battles that can be expensive and delay resolution of the substantive dispute.
The litigation funding market in England and Wales has grown rapidly in recent years under a largely self-regulated regime but change may be on the horizon in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in PACCAR,1 which prompted renewed public discussion about the funding industry and the extent to which it facilitates access to justice. The government has indicated that it will consider any recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council (CJC), which recently released its interim report on the subject, and which is currently running a public consultation on approaches to regulation.
In the final twist of this much talked about case, a consent order was filed on 18 December 2024 dismissing the shareholder action brought by 460 institutional investors against Barclays Plc ("Barclays") following a confidential settlement.
In Spain v London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd,1 on 12 December 2024 the Court of Appeal upheld a Commercial Court ruling which refused to register and recognise a €855 million Spanish judgment issued against the London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association (the "Club"). The Spanish judgment was inconsistent with earlier arbitral awards issued in London in respect of the same dispute. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal recognised that the res judicata created by a binding arbitral award is essential in the legal order of the United Kingdom (UK), and therefore it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to recognise the inconsistent Spanish judgment in England & Wales.
An abridged version of this article was originally published in Artificial Lawyer here.
What happens if parties settle a fraud claim and then the claimant seeks to re-open the litigation?
Our round-up of recent and forthcoming developments in UK law and practice for our international stakeholders.
In our Dispute Resolution Yearbook article Anti-suit injunctions for foreign seated arbitrations – a closing door?, we discussed the Court of Appeal's decision in UniCredit -v- RusChemAlliance[1] in which the Court of Appeal granted a final anti-suit injunction (ASI) restraining RusChemAlliance LLA (RCA) from pursuing court proceedings in Russia, in breach of a Paris-seated arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal's judgment was the first time that the English Courts had ordered, on a contested basis, that England was the proper place to bring a claim for an ASI in respect of a foreign-seated arbitration clause.
Our regular round-up of recent and forthcoming developments in law and practice for in-house counsel.