Featured case law commentary
-
VideosMember talks: back to basics: privilege
Exploring legal professional privilege, without prejudice privilege, and the evolving implications of AI on privilege. This series of bitesize videos, exclusive to Dispute Resolution Section members are delivered by experts to support you in giving the best possible legal advice to your clients.
-
FeatureContract Natural Gas Ltd v Zog Energy Ltd
Ahmed Abdel Hakam examines Contract Natural Gas Ltd v Zog Energy Ltd, and what it shows for time running when a company goes into administration
-
VideosMember talk: mental health for litigators
In this 30-minute member talk, Leah Alpren-Waterman asks Richard Martin from the Mindful Business Charter, and Matthew Fitzwater from Barclays about their experience and views on mental health for litigators.
-
VideosMember talk - Litigator’s Survival Guide: Best tips from judges in conducting litigation
This session is focused on how documents can be managed and presented at trial.
-
FeatureChurchill v Merthyr Tydfil and the ADR duty
Masood Ahmed considers the implications of the Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil ruling
-
FeatureRea v Rea and undue influence claims
Rajinder Rai examines the judgment in Rea v Rea, and the implications for claims of undue influence
-
VideosMember talk: Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council has the potential to reshape the landscape of dispute resolution and access to justice.
-
FeatureShould litigation be a last resort? Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council has the potential to reshape the landscape of dispute resolution and access to justice. Rajinder Rai and Peter Causton untangle the weeds of the case
-
FeatureCase commentary: Belsner v Cam Legal Services Limited
Rupert Cohen summarises the landmark case of Belsner v CAM Legal Services, and what this means for solicitors going forward
-
FeatureBott & Co Limited v Ryanair
Anthony Field summarises how Rosenblatt secured a landmark Supreme Court win for Bott & Co Limited against Ryanair
-
FeatureTomlin orders, Gertner and consumer credit: are solicitors are risk?
Rupert Cohen looks at the case of CFL Finance Ltd v Laser Trust and Another, and what this means going forward
-
FeatureHow Adelekun v Ho affects cost orders
Tom Jenkinson examines the decision made in Adelekun v Ho, and the impact that has on costs orders
-
FeatureOn the Beach, out of jurisdiction
The rules on when claimants need to seek court permission to serve proceedings out of jurisdiction changed on 1 January 2021. Henk Soede, barrister at 1 Chancery Lane chambers, looks at a recent case where permission was granted.
-
FeatureDisclosing “adverse” and “known adverse” documents
Genevieve Cripps looks at Castle Water Limited v Thames Utilities Limited, a case which clarified the meaning of adverse documents pursuant to Practice Direction 51U (PD51U).
-
FeatureLegal professional privilege revisited – but not for the last time
In the landmark case of Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), the Court of Appeal has overturned a controversial High Court decision restricting the application of litigation privilege. Elisabeth Ross considers what this means for practitioners.
-
FeatureDreamvar revisited: the nightmare for solicitors and insurers continues…
On 15 May 2018, the Court of Appeal published its judgment in the joint appeals of the P&P Property and Dreamvar cases. Both cases focus on the liability of solicitors where the purported seller of a property is in fact an imposter. Elisabeth Ross considers the cases’ impact. ...
-
AnalysisSwitching from legal aid to a CFA
Can a claimant who has instructed solicitors on legal aid, switch to a CFA and recover the success fee and ATE premium? Imran Benson of Hailsham Chambers discusses the Court of Appeal (CA) judgment in Surrey v Barnet & Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 451.
-
FeatureCase commentary: Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] UKSC 12
The Supreme Court has ruled against treating a litigant in person as a special case and says the rules as they stand must apply equally to all parties.
-
AnalysisCase commentary: Bailey v GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 3195 (QB)
Alison Kirby analyses this judgment in which the High Court has considered, for the first time, whether the Arkin cap - the principle that a funder’s potential liability for adverse costs will be limited to the amount of the funding provided - still fits.
-
FeatureKerry Underwood's third party funding update
Kerry Underwood dissects two recent judgments that could have significant implications for third party funders.