Dispute Resolution | 01 May 2013

The decision in Bartoline v Royal Sun Alliance [2006] has some commentators arguing that the door has effectively been shut on recovering environmental liabilities under public liability (PL) policies. This article examines whether this is true; it looks at the legal principles in Bartoline, its impact on the environmental insurance market and the likely future of the PL insurance market in the UK. [Continue Reading]

Dispute resolution | 01 April 2013

This article considers the Supreme Court decision in VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp & ors [2013]. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the case is that it casts doubt on the notion that the Court has the power to pierce the corporate veil. The Supreme Court also held that, even if the power to pierce the corporate veil does exist, it does not enable a claimant to hold parties that control a company jointly and severally liable under contracts entered into by that company. 
 [Continue Reading]

Dispute resolution | 01 March 2013

In R (on the application of Prudential plc & anor) (appellants) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & anor (respondents)[2013], the Supreme Court has held, by a majority of 5:2, that legal advice privilege (LAP) does not apply to communications between a client and an accountant seeking and giving legal advice on tax law. As a result, tax advice, when given by accountants, will not be privileged – even though the same advice would attract legal advice privilege if given by a solicitor.
 [Continue Reading]

Dispute resolution | 01 February 2013

In Royal Bank of Scotland plc v FAL Oil Company Ltd & ors [2012], Mrs Justice Gloster held that the English court had jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing injunction and worldwide disclosure orders despite the defendants not having any assets in the jurisdiction and the substantive claims being pursued in 
the UAE. [Continue Reading]

Dispute resolution | 01 December 2012

The Supreme Court has recently considered the issue of state immunity in the case of SerVaas Incorporated v Rafidain Bank & ors [2012].

The issues in the appeal were concerned with the scope of a state’s immunity from execution in respect of a judgment already made against it, rather than a state’s immunity from suit. However, the case offers an opportunity to revisit the law in this area in general.
 [Continue Reading]

Dispute resolution | 01 November 2012

In the final report of his review 
of civil litigation costs, Lord Justice 
Jackson made it clear that he considers litigation to be too expensive and that 
the high costs of bringing or defending 
a claim in court effectively limit access 
to justice. He proposed that the court’s case management powers be expressly extended to allow judges greater control over the costs during the proceedings. 
This proposition is a dramatic and fundamental departure from the current practice, where parties usually only argue about costs after trial or after their case has settled.
 [Continue Reading]

Dispute resolution | 01 October 2012

In the recent case of Jackson v Dear 
& anor [2012], Briggs J considered, among other things, the extent to which traditional 
tests for implying terms into contracts have been superseded by Lord Hoffmann’s decision in the Privy Council case of (1) Attorney General of Belize (2) ECOM Ltd 
(3) Belize Telecommunications Ltd v (1) Belize Telecom Ltd (2) Innovative Communication Co LLC [2009]. This article focuses on that element of Briggs J’s judgment. It also considers the case of SNCB Holding v UBS AG [2012], in which Cooke J also considered the impact of 
Lord Hoffmann’s dicta in the Belizecase and made some interesting comments about pleading implied terms.
 [Continue Reading]

Dispute resolution | 01 September 2012

It is a well-established principle of company law that a company has a separate legal personality from its members (Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897]). In certain limited circumstances, such as where the corporate structure has been used for the purposes of a fraud or as a device to avoid an existing contractual or legal obligation, the court will ‘pierce the corporate veil’ but, as a general rule, shareholders will not be liable for a company’s acts or omissions. [Continue Reading]

Dispute resolution | 01 July 2012

The recent case of Jones v IOS (RUK) Ltd & anor [2012] concerned a claim for damages for breach of a confidentiality agreement. In the opening paragraph of his judgment, His Honour Judge Hodge QC identified three ‘interesting issues of law’ that he needed to decide, namely:

[Continue Reading]