Category: Civil Litigation

civil litigation ● England and Wales ● judge's decision ● evidence ● causation of loss ● Blower v GH Canfields LLP ● legal process ● court judgments ● solicitor negligence

How Judges in England Decide Civil Litigation Cases: Insights from Blower v GH Canfields

This article uses the case of Sandra Blower v GH Canfields LLP to illustrate how judges in England and Wales reach decisions in civil litigation. Mrs. Blower alleged that Canfields, a London law firm, gave her inadequate advice regarding a settlement during her husband’s bankruptcy proceedings, where he faced liabilities exceeding £2 million. During a mediation session, Mr. Blower and the firm’s solicitor negotiated a £1.5 million settlement. However, Mr. Blower later attempted to back out of this agreement. The judge ruled in favour of the law firm. The judgment demonstrates the importance of evidence and legal precedent in the English legal system, as well as the weight judges give to the conduct and arguments of the parties.

Expert Litigation Barristers and Solicitors

When Stalled Litigation is an Abuse of the Proper Process of the Court

In addressing the challenge of stalled litigation, the Civil Procedure Rules provide an extensive legal framework designed to facilitate swift and just resolution of cases. Central to this framework is the overriding objective of the CPR, which mandates that cases should be handled justly and at proportionate cost.

"Adam Graham" Justfix Crypoto litigation England UK solicitors

Cryptocurrency Litigation Success: Assessing Compensatory Damages in Lieu of an Injunction for Specific Performance

We successfully represented a client in a significant cryptocurrency loan dispute. On 2 July 2024, the High Court handed down a judgment varying the valuation date for assessing damages in lieu of specific performance. Initially, the County Court had set the valuation date at the breach in 2019, which did not account for the significant increase in Ethereum’s value.

no win no fee solicitor uk funding litigation barrister opinion cfa dba damages claim

Litigation Funding in England & Wales (Legal Services Board Report)

A litigation funding report for the Legal Services Board evaluates UK litigation funding. It finds such funding can improve access to justice, facilitate consumer interest cases, and support a healthy legal market. However, it identifies the problems of highly limited, highly selective funding, potential cost tensions, and the need for robust AML controls.

Section 994 Petitions, Companies Act 2016

Quick Guide: s.994 Companies Act Unfair Prejudice Petitions

English law Unfair Prejudice Petitions offer a remedy for minority shareholders facing oppression by the majority within a company. Where the prospect of winding-up proves undesirable, section 994(1) of the Companies Act 2006 provides an alternative avenue for seeking redress. At LEXLAW, our expert company law team specialises in navigating the complexities of shareholder disputes and unfair prejudice claims.

Companies Act 2006 Section 994 Petitions litigation solicitor shareholder london uk

Court of Appeal Decides s.994 Petitions Subject to Statutory Limitation Period

In a significant shift, the Court of Appeal determined that unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 have a 12-year statutory limitation period, reversing previous beliefs and affecting future legal approaches to such claims. This ruling, THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 158, changes the legal landscape for minority shareholder disputes, requiring a reevaluation of existing strategies and the potential for earlier claims.

lukoil litasco sanctions trade force majeure litigation lawyers solicitors barristers in london uk

Court Dismisses Force Majeure & Trade Sanctions Control Defences

The High Court, in its decision on Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA & Anor [2023] EWHC 2866 (Comm), clarified the application of force majeure and the “ownership and control” test under UK sanctions law. It emphasized that significant difficulty, nearly impossible to overcome, is necessary to invoke force majeure for debt obligations. The ruling further established stringent criteria for proving “control” in relation to sanctioned entities, highlighting the necessity for actual influence over business decisions, rather than theoretical possibilities, to satisfy this condition. This decision provides a clearer framework for businesses handling contracts under these terms.