Latest by Kirtan Prasad

Blog

No best endeavours order where documents are out of party's control

Published on 16 December 2021. By Daniel Hemming, Partner and Kirtan Prasad, Senior Associate

Green tint 1

The High Court considered in Various Airfinance Leasing Companies & Anor v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation(1) whether a party could be obliged to seek disclosure from the personal mobile devices of its ex-employees (i) on the basis that documents on the phones were within the party's control; and (ii) alternatively, by using its best endeavours to seek disclosure. The application was dismissed as the court found that the documents were not within the "control" of the party as a matter of Saudi law and that there was no power to compel best endeavours to seek disclosure of documents outside a party's control.

Read more
Blog

Tech-driven arbitration? What else can we look forward to in arbitration in the UK?

Published on 25 February 2021. By Tatiana Minaeva, Partner and Kirtan Prasad, Senior Associate

Green tint

A look at the past year in arbitration in the UK and what the future holds.

Read more
Blog

To perform or not to perform? When tendering performance means actual performance

Published on 21 May 2020. By Dan Wyatt, Partner and Kirtan Prasad, Senior Associate

Green tint 1

A consultant was alleged to be in material breach of a consultancy contract for refusing to supply his services. He responded to a notice of material breach by stating that he was willing to perform. However, the Court of Appeal held that this was insufficient to remedy the breach (Bains v Arunvill Capital Limited and others)(1).

Read more
Blog

Tortious claims against third party may trigger anti-suit injunction

Published on 10 October 2019. By Chris Ross, Partner and Kirtan Prasad, Senior Associate

Untinted 3

A party's attempt to circumvent a jurisdiction clause by bringing tortious claims against a third party has been thwarted by the High Court. In granting an anti-suit injunction, the court explored the substance of the claims and found them to be "vexatious and oppressive", designed simply to evade the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Read more