Category: High Court

CPR Part 36 Part 18 Litigation UK Solicitors

High Court holds Ed Sheeran’s lawyers gave inadequate responses to Part 18 requests in copyright infringement case

The High Court has held that singer Ed Sheeran, ignored CPR Part 18 Requests for Information from Defendants in a copyright infringement case. The Court takes breaches of its rules seriously.

london solicitor high court litigation second opinion

German company commences High Court litigation over unpaid Letter of Credit

A Letter of Credit is an irrevocable written commitment by a Bank to make payment to a seller, in connection with the export of specific goods, against the presentation of specified documents identified in the Letter of Credit and relating to those goods. If you have a dispute about a documentary credit our expert UK lawyers can assist.

fraud dishonest assistance litigation privilege financial services bank vicarious liability

High Court considers legal privilege in case concerning fraudulent trading and dishonest assistance

The High Court held RBS and Natwest vicariously liable for traders assisting in fraud, despite lacking actual knowledge of the fraud. Read the full judgment for Bilta (UK) Ltd & Ors v Natwest Markets Plc & Anor [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch), which case concerned legal privilege amongst allegations of fraudulent trading and dishonest assistance.

confidentiality litigation advice privilege

High Court: Accountant’s report can be disclosed in litigation

For privilege to apply, there must be a lawyer (i.e. a solicitor or barrister) in the communication for legal advice privilege to apply. Legal advice privilege does NOT extend to other professionals such as accountants. Therefore, in disputes with HMRC for example, (potentially incriminating) communications with an accountant can be disclosed and are not privileged.

perry raleys solicitors london litigation lawyers lexlaw

FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance test case heading to the Supreme Court

Given the complexity of business interruption claims and the legal uncertainty surrounding their enforcement, it is is essential that you seek expert legal advice early in order to prepare your Business Interruption Insurance claim.

High Court holds Lloyds does not have to comply with repetitive subject access requests

The High Court has dismissed a claim against Lloyds Bank alleging the bank’s failure to respond to an individual’s data subject access requests (“DSAR”) following possession proceedings.

part 36 settlement offer litigation advice

Claimant’s Part 36 offer containing error for relevant period held to be compliant

In the High Court case of Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd (No 3) [2020] EWHC 2387 (TCC), it was held that a Claimant’s Part 36 offer which failed to correctly set out the relevant period was still deemed compliant with Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

expert evidence remote hearings

Expert Witnesses: Guidance on giving remote evidence

There are, as a result of coronavirus restrictions, bound to be many more remote and virtual hearings as courts, tribunals and other forms of dispute resolution adapt to appropriate new ways of working. The guidance sets out the best ways to prepare for hearings proceeding remotely.

business interruption insurance claim solicitors

Judgment in FCA’s BI Insurance test case: Policyholders entitled to compensation

Policyholders with affected claims can expect to hear from their insurers within the next 7 days. Given the complexity of business interruption claims and the legal uncertainty surrounding their enforcement, it is is essential that you seek expert legal advice early in order to prepare your Business Interruption Insurance claim.

lexlaw freezing order solicitor

Worldwide freezing order against Saudi national discharged

In Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Albluewi [2020] EWHC 1313 (QB), the High Court discharged a worldwide freezing order (WFO) obtained by a casino against its customer in finding that the claimant had failed to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets and that there had been material non-disclosures which were directly relevant to the risk.