This issue of our Litigation newsletter includes an overview of the court approval of the use of "Artificial Intelligence" in disclosure, a round up of limitation pitfalls, the latest word on "Serious Harm" under the Defamation Act 201 and the latest developments of Part 36 offers.
Quick updates for those involved in disputes
This article includes: Cost budgeting changes – 6 April 2016; Fixed costs: proposals from Jackson LJ to extend fixed costs regime, and a decision; Lord Justice Briggs – Interim Report on Structure of the Civil Courts; Increased media access to Court of Appeal skeleton arguments
Technology Assisted Review – court approves use of "Artificial Intelligence" in disclosure
The judgment of Master Matthews in Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd [2016] EWHC 256 (Ch) is the first reported decision of the English High Court endorsing the use of the technology commonly referred to as "predictive coding" or "technology assisted review" in place of "manual" review in disclosure. In appropriate cases the technology can save substantial costs by vastly reducing the number of documents that need to be reviewed by a lawyer.
Limitation pitfalls round up
Included in this article: Standing still may not form a barrier; New life for claim cut short; Depressing claim value to pay lower court fee was an abuse of process
Rectification of contracts - swap 1992 for 2002?
In LSREF III Wight Limited v Millvalley Limited [2016] EWHC 466 (Comm), Mr Justice Cooke, sitting in the Commercial Court, considered a restructured interest rate swap agreement referring to the International Swaps & Derivatives Association (ISDA)'s 1992 Master Agreement. He declined to make a declaration that, on its true construction, it incorporated the 2002 Master Agreement, but ordered rectification to achieve a similar outcome.
The latest word on "Serious Harm" under the Defamation Act 2013
The High Court has made two important rulings so far this year as to what constitutes "serious harm" under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, which requires claimants in defamation actions to prove that the statement complained of has caused or is likely to cause serious harm.
Part 36 offers – latest developments
Part 36 offers to settle proceedings must comply with the form prescribed in CPR 36 and the related Practice Direction. Although parties are able to settle a matter in any manner they choose, the advantage of using a Part 36 offer is that if you manage to obtain a judgment that is more favourable, in financial terms, than your Part 36 offer you should recover enhanced costs and interest. Claimants who beat their own Part 36 offers may also be entitled to additional benefits.
Related Insights
All Insights
Increasingly complex UK and cross-border landscape for navigating risk in pharmaceutical communications
The establishment of a new whistleblowing authority in Spain
CP24/2 Part 2 - The FCA’s revised proposals for publicity over enforcement investigations