‘After a wait of more than a year from the introduction of class actions in the UK, there were two class certification hearings before the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in just over a month. Although in each case the CAT has yet to hand down its certification decision, the hearings have given some clear signals about how the CAT sees the regime.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 6th March 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Ben Mansfield, barrister of The 36 Group, examines the judgment of Mr Justice Keehan in H (A Minor) v Northamptonshire County Council and the Legal Aid Agency [2017] EWHC 282 (Fam).’
Family Law Week, 23rd February 2017
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘Whatever your opinion on the ethical implications of third party funding in international arbitration, the past six months have seen two firm nods in its favour. These have signaled that, as a method of financing arbitration, it is here to stay.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th January 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has this morning handed down its judgment in the case of Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and others, a decision that is of great importance to third party funders and their potential liability for adverse costs.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 18th November 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Commercial third party funders are liable for the costs consequences of a litigant’s misconduct, regardless of whether they themselves were guilty of any “discreditable conduct or conduct which could be criticised”, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A defendant whose conduct forced the claimant to seek third-party funding to take its case to arbitration has to pay the £2m owed to the funder following the claim’s success, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd October 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Local authorities and regeneration bodies can expect greater scrutiny to be placed on their decisions to override third party rights in land on public interest grounds under new UK planning laws that came into effect in the summer.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st September 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The High Court has today upheld the decision of an arbitrator to allow the recovery of the costs of securing third party funding as costs, in what is being hailed as a landmark decision.’
Litigation Futures, 19th September 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Third-party funders in judicial review proceedings should be identified to defendants only in exceptional circumstances, the Law Society has said in response to government plans to require anyone contributing more than £3,000 to declare their identities.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 25th August 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘New rights for third parties to bring direct actions against insurers in the event that an insured party against which they have a claim becomes insolvent will come into force on 1 August 2016.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th July 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Where a party intervenes in an appeal from a decision of a hearing officer acting on behalf of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, ordinary a costs order will not be made in the intervener’s favour. The court will only consider departing from its ordinary position if it is satisfied that (1) the intervener’s position was successful, (2) its submission added value to the hearing, and (3) it had not duplicated the respondent’s submissions (paras 10, 12).’
WLR Daily, 7th July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The government has doubled the threshold above which third-party contributors to judicial reviews (JRs) will have to be identified.’
Litigation Futures, 11th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Following the consultation, the government has set out how it intends for the reforms to be implemented, and is seeking views on one further aspect.’
official-documents.gov.uk, 7th July 2016
Source: www.official-documents.gov.uk
R+V Versicherung AG v Robertson & Co SA [2016] EWHC 1243 (QB)
‘The claimant reinsurer, a German company, engaged the defendant, a Swiss company, to provide loss-adjusting services in joint instruction with another reinsurer, AIG, a New Zealand-based company, which was already instructing the defendant. When a dispute arose between the claimant and the defendant concerning the performance of its loss-adjusting services, the claimant brought proceedings in England on the basis that it had contracted with the defendant on terms contained in a master agreement made between the defendant and another AIG company which provided for application of English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant served the proceedings on the defendant, relying on article 23 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007. The defendant, denying that the terms of the master agreement had been incorporated into its contract with the claimant, applied to set aside service of the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 27th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Cavanagh and others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWHC 1136 (QB)
The first and second claimant employees were, it was assumed for present purposes, employed by the defendant employer under civil service terms and conditions and various collective agreements. Under “check-off arrangements” in the employer’s deductions from pay policy, the employees had opted for their subscriptions to the third claimant trade union to be paid by deduction from their salary and paid by the employer to the union. Latterly the check-off arrangements had been included in the employer’s salary policy published on the staff intranet. When the employer ended the check-off arrangements, the claimants brought a claim against it, contending that the employees had a contractual right to insist that the employer continue with the arrangement enforceable by the trade union under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
WLR Daily, 13th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another [2016] EWHC 1118 (Comm)
‘The charterer engaged a third party company to arrange contracts which would be concluded in the charterer’s name but performed by the third party. Through the third party, the charterer entered into a contract of affreightment with the owner. The principal contact point between the owner and the charterer was a junior employee at the third party company. When a dispute arose the owner appointed an arbitrator and e-mailed their notice of arbitration to the third party’s employee, calling on the charterer to appoint their arbitrator. The charterer having not responded, the owner’s arbitrator, in accordance with the terms of the contract, proceeded as the sole arbitrator and made an award in favour of the owner. The charterer applied, pursuant to section 72(1)(b)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996, for a declaration that the award had been made without jurisdiction, on the ground that the third party’s employee had not had authority to accept service of notice of commencement of arbitration proceedings on the charterer’s behalf and that service on him had not been in accordance with section 76 of the 1996 Act. The owner contended that the employee had had actual implied authority and/or ostensible authority to receive notice of arbitration on the charterer’s behalf.’
WLR Daily, 20th May 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The explosion of genetic testing in the last half century has produced unquantifiable benefits, allowing scientists to understand the constitution of genetic disorders and dramatically improve disease diagnosis, avoidance and treatment. Consider the near-eradication of Tay-Sachs, a fatal neurodegenerative disease, since the introduction of screening in the 1970s; the standardisation of newborn testing; and the introduction of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing for inherited cancer genes.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th April 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling that had protected law firms from financial risk through restricting the way professional indemnity insurers could aggregate multiple claims.’
Legal Futures, 14th April 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Sanam v National Crime Agency: [2015] EWCA Civ 1234; [2015] WLR (D) 495
‘There was no basis for concluding that a civil recovery order obtained by the National Crime Agency pursuant to Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of property derived from unlawful conduct would violate the rights of an innocent former wife of the criminal under article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, even though she would be left without any assets if a recovery order was made.’
WLR Daily, 2nd December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has made a major strike against the practice of third-party capture by ordering an insurance company that settled personal injury claims directly with the clients of a law firm to pay the solicitors the costs they would have earned.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024