Commercial disputes
Nowhere to run: why a document can be "left" with a defendant and still be served in the right way
The High Court has clarified what it means to personally serve a defendant by "leaving" a document with them and confirmed that the court has jurisdiction to make an order obliging a defendant to reveal the whereabouts of missing property.
Read moreHigh Court confirms permission not needed for "Technology Assisted Review" to facilitate discovery in litigation
China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Ltd (in liquidation) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,(1) is a recent decision of the Court of First Instance of the High Court that confirms that court approval is not needed for the use of technology assisted review (TAR) to facilitate the discovery process pursuant to an agreed protocol between the parties, although the court has power to order the manner in which discovery of documents is undertaken between the parties if they apply to court.
Read moreThe October CPR update: three important changes for litigators
The traditional autumn update to the CPR this year comes with three developments of particular note for litigators: the permanent incorporation of the disclosure pilot into the CPR, amendments to the rules relating to service out of jurisdiction, and the simplification of certain Practice Directions including PD16 regarding Statements of Case (PD16).
Read more"Specifically mentioned": High Court clarifies rules about documents referred to in evidence under the Disclosure Pilot
In a judgment that has recently become publicly available (Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott and others [2022] EWHC 730 (Comm)) the High Court rejected the claimant's request for disclosure of documents referred to in a witness statement which were "bound to exist". In doing so, the court re-emphasised the importance of clarity and specificity in relation to requests for disclosure.
Read moreYou've been airdropped: English court approves service by NFT and finds it arguable that cryptocurrency-exchanges hold misappropriated assets as constructive trustees
In D’Aloia v (1) Persons Unknown (2) Binance Holdings Limited & Others [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch), the English court approved service of proceedings by NFT and found that it was arguable that cryptocurrency exchanges owed constructive trustee duties to cyber-fraud victims.
Read moreBack to basics on contract interpretation as Court of Appeal finds that natural meaning of settlement agreement prevails
In Schofield & Anor v Smith & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 824, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of a group of companies, finding that a settlement agreement entered into between the group companies and their bank released the companies' former administrators and their solicitors from all relevant claims, even though the settlement agreement had been agreed without the involvement of the administrators, and after the administration of the group companies had been concluded.
Read moreCourt of Appeal finds that damages-based agreements are not available to defendants
The Court of Appeal has found that damages-based agreements (DBAs) are not available to non-counterclaiming defendants (Candey Ltd v Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors). [2022] EWCA Civ 936. In reaching this conclusion, the court held that agreements between legal representatives and defendant clients, which provide for payment to the legal representative of a percentage of sums that the client has resisted paying to its opponent (and where the client received no financial benefit from its opponent), were unlawful and unenforceable.
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 moreHigh Court holds litigation funder liable for costs that pre-dated funding agreement
The Commercial Court has held a litigation funder to be jointly and severally liable for the defendants' costs from a date prior to the litigation funding agreement and despite the involvement of other funders in The ECU Group plc v HSBC Bank Plc & ors [2022] EWHC 1616 (Comm).
Read moreCommercial Court dismisses ECU claims against HSBC entities due to limitation
The Commercial Court has provided a timely reminder of the importance of limitation periods, along with the application of the law of causation in the context of claims that relate to foreign exchange markets.
Read moreFirst judgment obtained in proceedings brought by a cryptocurrency exchange in the English Courts
In HDR v Shulev and Nexo [2022] EWHC 1685 (Comm), HDR (represented by RPC), which operates the cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX, initiated stakeholder proceedings under CPR Part 86 to resolve a dispute between two rival parties claiming control, and ownership of the contents, of a trading account.
Read moreCommercial Court applies "utility" approach to declarations in Italian local authority swaps case (Deutsche Bank v Comune Di Busto Arsizio)
Following on from a decision that an Italian local authority did not lack capacity to enter into a mirror swap and interest rate swap concluded with Deutsche Bank AG London (the Bank), the Commercial Court granted some of the declarations the Bank sought, which mostly tracked express contractual representations or terms of the transactions. The court also refused permission to appeal sought by the local authority, a stay of proceedings sought by the Bank and ordered the local authority to pay all costs (Deutsche Bank AG London v Comune Di Busto Arsizio).
Read moreCompeting subordinated debts – the lessons learnt from Lehmans' insolvency
Some 13 years ago, Lehman Brothers' sudden and unexpected insolvency sent ripples across the banking and financial services market, some of which are still felt today. The Court of Appeal's decision in the consolidated cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Scottish LP 3 v Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (in administration) and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1523 was the latest in a long line of cases seeking to unwind the issues arising from Lehman Brothers' unexpected collapse.
Read moreSebastian Holdings litigation – tail-end risks mount for Mr Vik
In the latest chapter of the attritional legal battle between Deutsche Bank AG (DBAG) and Sebastian Holdings and its principal Mr Alexander Vik (Mr Vik), DBAG has ground out yet another victory against Mr Vik. This time, the stakes are much higher than substantial sums of money – Mr Vik now faces a potential custodial sentence after having been found by the Commercial Court to have been in contempt of court for deliberately giving false evidence.
Read morePD57AC: How compliant is compliant? High Court refuses to strike out passages in fact witness statements
Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd & Ors(1), departs notably from the recent pattern of authority and guidance on the enforcement of the new witness statement Practice Direction 57AC (PD57AC).
Read moreHigh Court decides that reviving proceedings automatically stayed under CPR 15.11 requires relief from sanctions
In a recent judgment, the English Commercial Court in Bank of America Europe DAC v CITTA Metropolitana Di Milano has provided guidance on the "automatic stay" provisions of CPR 15.11 and the circumstances in which parties can revive dormant proceedings subject to such an automatic stay.
Read more"Train of inquiry" documents: Court makes rare and exceptional order for Model E Disclosure under disclosure pilot
In a recent interim decision in the re-trial of Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima [2022] EWHC 1295 (Ch), the Court has made a rare order for Model E Disclosure under PD 51U. The Model was applied to one issue only, which the Judge considered a "core critical issue" in dispute.
Read moreHigh Court again highlights importance of the confidentiality embargo on a draft judgment
In keeping with the run of High Court decisions on the importance of the confidentiality embargo which attaches draft judgments, the IPEC has held that an embargo was breached when journalists were provided with a press release on confidential terms, prior to the judgment being formally handed down(1). While this was a breach, the judgment clarified that certain disclosures made internally to employees of the Defendants' company were permitted, as they fell within the intended scope of CPR Part 40 and its Practice Direction.
Read moreThe "Legal Minefield" of Witness Statements for Multi-Lingual Witnesses under PD32 and PD57AC
In Bahia v Sidhu(1), the High Court considered the difficulties that arose when a witness provided written statements in English but in practice spoke a mix of two languages (English and Punjabi), and gave evidence through an interpreter. Ultimately, despite expressing reservations about choosing English for the written statements, when seen in the context of cross-examination (both in English and Punjabi) the Court found that the choice of language for the witness statements did not represent a breach of the relevant Civil Procedure Rules (the CPR).
Read moreAPP fraud: Commercial Court considers approach to unjust enrichment and knowing receipt claims
The recent Commercial Court decision of Tecnimont Arabia Limited v National Westminster Bank PLC(1) considered the court's approach to a claim for unjust enrichment against a recipient bank in an authorised push payment (APP) fraud context. In particular, the Court examined whether the enrichment can be said to be at the 'expense' of the claimant, what factors amount to enrichment being 'unjust' and when the defence of 'change of position' is available. In relation to knowing receipt, the court considered the question of when property is 'trust property' for the purposes of the cause of action.
Read moreInjunction granted over stolen NFTs held on constructive trust
In a highly anticipated judgment, the Commercial Court in Lavinia Deborah Osbourne v (1) Persons Unknown (2) Ozone Networks Inc held that "there is at least a realistically arguable case" that non-fungible tokens ('NFTs') are to be treated as property in English Law.
Read moreMarex Strikes Again: Giles v Rhind exception to rule against reflective loss is "dead for all intents and purposes"
Despite it being almost two years since the Supreme Court judgment in Marex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja [2020] UKSC 31 considered the principle of reflective loss, the courts continue to grapple with its impacts and effects in relation to existing cases, many of which were stayed pending the appeal.
Read moreGleeson Privies: Can non-parties to an arbitration be estopped by it?
The recent judgment in PJSC National Bank Trust and others v Boris Mints and others(1) clarifies that arbitral proceedings can give rise to an issue estoppel or abuse of process claim against a non-party who is a "privy" of a party to the arbitration. However, the court observed that this would be exceptional given the contractual and confidential nature of arbitration.
Read moreAre you a "person discharging managerial responsibility"? High Court clarifies meaning of PDMRs under FSMA
In a recent interim decision in Allianz Global Investors GmbH and Ors v G4S Ltd (formerly G4S plc) [2022] EWHC 1081 (Ch), Mr Justice Miles clarified the scope of the expression "persons discharging managerial responsibility" ("PDMRs") for the purpose of establishing liability under s.90A and Schedule 10A of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA").
Read moreIrrelevant to any issue in the proceedings? High Court orders complete re-review of party's redactions under disclosure pilot scheme
In JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky and other the English court determined that, having adopted an unduly narrow approach to relevance, the first defendant should conduct a complete re-review of each of over 6,000 WhatsApp messages in order to determine whether the redactions that had been applied could be maintained, and to provide further information about each redacted message.
Read moreIs the crypto market at the end of its Tether?
The crashing out of Terra has unleashed fears of unsettled investors, rising disputes and fraud exposure.
Read morePrivy Council decides that banks owe no Quincecare duty to a beneficial owner of monies in an account
A bank does not owe the beneficial owner of account monies any duty of care in negligence, including any Quincecare duty: this was the conclusion of the Privy Council in the Isle of Man case Royal Bank of Scotland International Ltd v JP SPC4 and another. The appeal concerned a fraud where the account holder had defrauded the beneficial owner of the monies, an investment fund, by paying funds out of the relevant bank accounts in contravention of a legitimate investment scheme.
Read moreCourt of Appeal says no to purely factual appeals
In the context of a dispute as to whether funding provided from a father to his son to purchase a property constituted a gift or a loan, the Court of Appeal re-articulated the very limited circumstances in which an appeal court may interfere with a trial judge's conclusions on primary facts. The trial judge must be "plainly wrong", in the sense that their conclusion was "rationally insupportable" in order to warrant such interference. The court also considered a list of features of purely factual appeals which are unlikely to succeed in the appeal court.
Read moreCourt of Appeal upholds the CAT's opt-out certification in Le Patourel v BT
Last week, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Le Patourel v BT Group. BT's appeal against the Competition Appeal Tribunal's decision to grant a collective proceedings order (CPO) on an opt-out* basis was unsuccessful. In a claimant-friendly ruling, the Court of Appeal held that the CAT's opt-out determination was correct and that direct account crediting at distribution stage would be permissible.
Read moreObvious arithmetical error in damages calculation is sufficient for arbitral award to be set aside for procedural irregularity, finds High Court
The High Court has found that an "obvious arithmetical error" in the calculation of damages was a procedural irregularity under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) and set aside the relevant part of the award.
Read moreCourt of Appeal strikes out defences that funds' losses resulting from FX manipulation have been passed on to investors following redemption
In Allianz Global Investors GmbH & Ors v Barclays Bank PLC & Ors(1), the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the claimant funds (the Funds) and struck out defences by the Defendant banks (the Banks) that losses incurred by the Funds had been avoided or passed on upon redemption by their investors.
Read moreHong Kong – General adjournment of court proceedings ends with more guidance for remote hearings
Hong Kong's general adjournment of court proceedings ends with more guidance for remote hearings.
Read moreCommercial Court confirms limits of full and frank disclosure duty in arbitration enforcement action
What happens when a party makes a without notice application? How far should it go to meet its obligation of full and frank disclosure? The Commercial Court gave clear guidance on the limits of this duty when it dismissed the latest claim by the State of Libya that challenged General Dynamic's permission to enforce an arbitral award in General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd v State of Libya.(1) This was one in a series of cases between the company and the North African country.
Read moreDisputes Yearbook 2022: Retail and Restructuring
As part of the acclaimed Disputes Yearbook, Legal Business interviewed members of our disputes team exploring the litigation landscape and what RPC brings to the table.
Read moreDisputes Yearbook 2022: Civil Fraud
As part of the acclaimed Disputes Yearbook, Legal Business interviewed members of our disputes team exploring the litigation landscape and what RPC brings to the table.
Read moreDisputes Yearbook 2022: Banking Litigation
As part of the acclaimed Disputes Yearbook, Legal Business interviewed members of our disputes team exploring the litigation landscape and what RPC brings to the table.
Read moreDisputes Yearbook 2022: Technology disputes
As part of the acclaimed Disputes Yearbook, Legal Business interviewed members of our disputes team exploring the litigation landscape and what RPC brings to the table.
Read moreCourt of Appeal holds that Quincecare duty can arise in principle where customer gives instructions in authorised push payment fraud
The Court of Appeal has clarified in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2022] EWCA Civ 318 that the Quincecare duty, which requires a bank to refrain from acting on a payment instruction and to make inquiries when it is on notice of a serious possibility of fraud, can arise for a bank even where it is the customer themselves giving instructions to pay money out of their account to a fraudster.
Read moreSupreme Court rules that solicitor's equitable lien was valid even though no proceedings were issued
An equitable lien allows solicitors involved in litigation to deduct their fees before paying compensation to their client and if the paying party deliberately bypasses the solicitor, they may be liable to pay any unrecoverable fees. The Supreme Court has re-confirmed that a solicitor benefits from this equitable lien when they are instructed to make a claim even if proceedings have not been issued and it is not anticipated that the claim will be disputed.
Read morePrivy Council widens law on freezing injunctions in "ground-breaking" exposition of the law
In Broad Idea International Ltd v Convoy Collateral Ltd / Convoy Collateral Ltd v Cho Kwai Chee [2021] UKPC 24, the Privy Council handed down a judgment which set new juridical boundaries for the law of freezing injunctions. Rejecting the long-established position in The Siskina, the panel of judges confirmed that a court's injunctive power extends to the grant of freezing orders where (i) there are no relevant domestic proceedings in prospect and (ii) the sole purpose of the order is to aid enforcement in foreign proceedings.
Read moreCourt of Appeal draws distinction between claims for recovery of tax and restitution for tax paid out fraudulently
In Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners,(1) the Court of Appeal investigated in detail the operation of rule 3(1) of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (edition 15) (Dicey rule 3), which provides that English courts do not have jurisdiction over actions for "the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue, or other public law of a foreign State". The Court decided that the Danish tax authority's claim did not fall within Dicey rule 3 as it concerned the restitution of monies misappropriated by fraud rather than enforcement of tax.
Read moreCompeting opt-out claims refused certification in CAT's FX decision
Since the first opt-out certification last summer in Merricks, a steady stream of collective claims has been certified by the CAT. There have now been four opt-out certifications with many more applications in the wings. Last week's FX decision is the CAT's first certification refusal following Merricks.
Read moreHong Kong – General adjournment of court proceedings given severity of “5th Wave” of COVID-19
Given the severity of the “5th Wave” of the pandemic in Hong Kong, on 4 March 2022 the judiciary announced another “general adjournment of proceedings”; this time to run from 7 March to 11 April 2022.
Read moreCan litigation privilege be claimed for exploratory correspondence with an expert before litigation is in prospect?
In a recent case, the Court decided that correspondence with an expert did not attract legal professional privilege. The expert's work had been intended to provide "ballast" for a claim in suspected mismanagement, but in fact the expert's investigation uncovered a potential alternative claim, which was quite distinct from the claim initially being investigated.
Read moreCourt of Appeal issues "clear message" that those who breach embargoes on draft judgments risk contempt proceedings
In only the third judgment ever to consider the issue, the Court of Appeal has issued a stark reminder that court users should take care to observe any embargo over a draft judgment or else face the possibility of proceedings for contempt of court.
Read moreCourt of Appeal holds that Quincecare duty can arise where the customer gives instructions in authorised push payment fraud
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in relation to a bank's Quincecare duty and authorised push payment fraud, finding in favour of the customer who lost the bulk of her life savings.
Read moreWhere's the damage? High Court dismisses jurisdiction challenge in US$495 million claim
The High Court has dismissed UBS' challenge to jurisdiction in a ca. US$495 million claim – and in doing so set out useful guidance in terms of how the Court will determine "where the damage has occurred" in cases of economic loss. The judge looked for the most "natural analysis" in determining the manifestation of the loss, and broadly agreed that "the usual answer [in bad investment cases] will be that the loss occurs in, and at the place of, the bank account which was depleted."
Read moreRelying on the Defence to plead a new, time-barred claim – Court of Appeal provides clarity
The Court of Appeal has provided clarity on a claimant's ability to bring an otherwise time-barred claim in reliance on facts raised in the Defence. In the recent case of Mulalley & Co. Ltd v Martlet Homes Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 32 the claimant was permitted to introduce a new claim, post-limitation, in response to what was potentially a full defence to the original Particulars of Claim.
Read moreHigh Court finds that a cryptocurrency exchange arrangement was not a trust
The High Court decided that no trust could arise where two parties had agreed to an exchange of cryptocurrencies (in essence a sale and repurchase agreement), as the essential economic reciprocity precluded the existence of any trust.
Read more