Latest by Davina Given
Litigation privilege: whose privilege?
The claimants, companies in the corporate group of the mining company MMG, applied to inspect certain documents created in foreign proceedings over which the defendants, companies belonging to the mining company Glencore, asserted litigation privilege.
Read morePrivilege: A welcome respite from ENRC?
Are interviews held with employees to prepare a report intended to deter a governmental authority from taking legal action privileged?
Read moreDocuments from which legal advice can be inferred – are they privileged?
The High Court considered the extent to which legal advice privilege could attach to documents which were not communications of legal advice between lawyer and client but from which privileged legal advice could be inferred and held that privilege could indeed apply to such documents. The test is whether there is a "definite and reasonable foundation" for such an inference to be made as opposed to material that would merely make the reader speculate what the legal advice was.
Read moreGhosh test overturned: dishonesty according to the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people
The Supreme Court has held that the test for dishonesty should be assessed only by reference to whether or not the defendant's conduct is dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people. The Court concluded that there were convincing grounds for holding that the second limb of the longstanding Ghosh test did not correctly represent the law and that directions based upon it ought no longer to be given. The Court further stated that the assessment of dishonesty in criminal and civil proceedings should be made by reference to the same test.
Read moreThe Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: harsh but fair?
A recent case highlights the dilemma of businesses whose assets are frozen as suspected proceeds of crime.
Read moreLessons learned from Property Alliance Group v RBS
This article assesses the key aspects of the High Court's judgment and considers their implications for similar claims.
Read moreGuidance on the "cardinal rule" for implying terms
In Irish Bank Resolution Corp Ltd (In Special Liquidation) v Camden Market Holdings Corp the Court of Appeal held that a term could not be implied into an agreement because, although it was linguistically consistent, it was substantively inconsistent with the express terms. In doing so, the court shed further light on the application of the "cardinal rule" that an implied term must not contradict any of the express terms of the contract.
Read moreCultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017: what do collectors and dealers need to know?
The UK Parliament has recently passed the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017. Although the provisions of the Act have not yet come into force, how will this impact collectors and dealers?
Read moreThe law of unintended consequences
Why professional indemnity insurers should closely examine losses in professional negligence claims
Read morePrior arbitral award – abuse of process?
Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Sinclair and others [2017] EWCA Civ 3 demonstrates the interplay between arbitration and litigation, considering whether legal proceedings commenced by A against C are an abuse of the court's process where arbitration proceedings between A and B have decided the issue in question. The Court of Appeal held that a prior arbitration award can found an argument that subsequent litigation against a third party is an abuse of process, but will rarely do so. On the facts of this case, the claim was not considered to be an abuse of process.
Read more