The Spring 2017 issue of our Resolve publication includes: Quick summaries for those involved in disputes; Solicitors who were not negligent held in breach of trust; Subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998 and more...
Quick summaries for those involved in disputes
Our quick summaries in this issue include recent cases on litigation funding, witness evidence and jurisdiction.
Read the quick summaries in full
Subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998
Subject Access Requests (SARs) are requests made under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) by individuals (data subjects) wishing to access their personal data. A data subject who makes a written request and pays a fee (currently £10) to a data controller is entitled to be told (among other things) whether any personal data is being processed; to be given a description of the personal data, and to receive a copy of the information comprising the data. SARs can be onerous for data controllers to comply with, and it is not uncommon for data subjects to seek to use them to obtain disclosure in aid of proceedings or contemplated proceedings against the data processor.
Conspiracy to breach English court order when conspirators are abroad – do the English courts have jurisdiction?
The Court of Appeal has given another judgment in the long-running dispute between JSC BTA Bank (the Bank) and its former Chairman, Mukhtar Ablyazov. This judgment concerns the Bank’s claim issued in July 2015 against Mr Ablyazov and his son-in-law, Ilyas Khrapunov, for conspiracy to injure the Bank by unlawful means. The Bank alleges that Mr Khrapunov conspired with Mr Ablyazov in 2009 to hide assets, contrary to worldwide freezing and receivership orders.
Solicitors who were not negligent held in breach of trust
Dreamvar (UK) Ltd v Mishcon de Reya and others has caused some concern to solicitors and their professional indemnity insurers. Find out why...
Success fees and after the event insurance premiums in publishing cases – recoverability decision from Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed appeals by three newspaper publishers who claimed that orders requiring them to pay the successful claimants' additional liabilities infringed the publishers' human rights.
Damages recovery against negligent professionals: SAAMCO revisited
On 22 March 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland.In it, the Supreme Court has restated the important principle limiting the extent of a claimant's recoverable damage in professional negligence actions laid down in the SAAMCO case (South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997] A.C. 191), and has overruled cases establishing a potential exception to the principle.
Damages in the absence of damage: The perils of expecting a "jackpot"
In Marathon v Seddon & others, while both defendants were found liable for breach of confidence, Marathon was only awarded nominal damages of £2 in comparison to the £15 million it had claimed.
