Get up to date with the Summer 2022 edition of the brief case, our litigation newsletter
Quick links to the articles:
- A brave new world? – the Online Civil Procedure Rules committee and digitisation of the courts >
- Costs awards – when conduct may be relevant >
- New jurisdictional gateway announced to assist victims of cryptocurrency fraud >
- 'Six covers please!': restaurant group wins heated dispute about coverage for covid business interruption losses >
- Communications with experts: a cautionary tale >
- Evidence to prove a debt claim: it's all in the detail >
- Quincecare duty not engaged where banks only have general "red flag" concerns which are not specific to the payment instruction itself >
- Injunctive relief: do not delay! >
- Personal emails, but not so private? >
- The Briefest Case - Quick updates for those dealing with business disputes >
Read the articles:
A brave new world? – the online civil procedure rules committee and digitisation of the courts
The Ministry of Justice and the senior judiciary intend to introduce "digital justice" comprising end to end online dispute resolution, as part of the £1 billion programme to holistically reform civil and family court proceedings.
Costs awards – when conduct may be relevant
Generally English courts will order that the loser pays the winner's costs. However, a losing party may raise aspects of the overall conduct of the case by the winning party in order to argue that the winner's costs should be reduced, disallowed or shifted.
New jurisdictional gateway announced to assist victims of cryptocurrency fraud
In a speech on issues in cryptocurrency fraud claims at the Crypto Disputes Conference on 29 June 2022, His Honour Judge Pelling QC announced a new Gateway to be incorporated into CPR Practice Direction 6B, which aims to assist victims of cryptocurrency fraud in overcoming jurisdictional issues in bring claims against fraudsters based outside of England and Wales.
'Six covers please!': restaurant group wins heated dispute about coverage for covid business interruption losses
In February 2022, the Commercial Court held that a denial of access (non-damage) (NDDA) clause within a business interruption insurance policy: (i) did provide cover for losses as a result of access to premises being restricted (in this case as a result of various COVID lockdowns), and (ii) that the policy in question could be analysed as a composite policy, with each insured entity having a separate insurable interest, represented by the venue it owned.
Communications with experts: a cautionary tale
In a recent judgment, ANDREWS V KRONOSPAN LTD, [2022] EWHC 479 (QB) the claimants' permission to rely on their expert's evidence was revoked after the court determined it had no confidence in the expert's ability to act in accordance with his obligations as an expert witness, following serious transgressions by the claimants' solicitors and the expert in their communications on drafts of the joint experts' report.
Evidence to prove a debt claim: it's all in the detail
Any claimant seeking to recover a sum of money must not only (1) establish the defendant's liability, but must also (2) evidence the sum of money claimed (including how the sum has been calculated). Failure to record and disclose evidence of the sum and its calculation can be fatal to recovery.
Quincecare duty not engaged where banks only have general "red flag" concerns which are not specific to the payment instruction itself
In the latest in the recent series of Quincecare cases, on 14 June 2022 the High Court dismissed the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the FRN)'s $1.7bn Quincecare claim against JPMorgan (the Bank), finding that the Quincecare duty did not arise and, even if it had, the Bank would not have breached it.
Injunctive relief: do not delay!
In February 2015, Mr Gilligan commenced employment with Planon Ltd (Planon), a company which specialises in the development and sale of facilities management software. Mr Gilligan's employment contract contained a post-termination restriction that prevented him from working for any competitors of Planon for a period of 12 months.
Personal emails, but not so private?
The boundaries between work and personal life have become increasingly blurred. So it's unsurprising that employees often use work email addresses to send personal emails. On the one hand, employees may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in private emails sent from their work email address even where a business bans using a work email address for private purposes. However, how does this expectation fit in with the rights of an employer?
THE BRIEFEST CASE - QUICK UPDATES FOR THOSE DEALING WITH BUSINESS DISPUTES
The Briefest Case holds several quick updates, highlighting recent useful decisions for those dealing with disputes.
Parties must agree to email as a method of service before service is effected
Waksman J held that the service of a particulars of claim by email was invalid as it had not been agreed between the two parties whether electronic service was to be permitted.
Disclosure application against foreign non-party could not be served out of jurisdiction
The Commercial Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to grant permission to serve a disclosure application outside the jurisdiction on a foreign non-party.
The importance of getting your redactions right
In JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky and others the Court determined that the first defendant should re-review redactions applied to WhatsApp messages he had disclosed as he had adopted an unduly narrow approach to what was relevant.