July/August 2015 #62 – Law Journals

Experts: In safe hands

Neil Jamieson and Paul Mesquitta outline the perils involved in changing experts ‘One can easily see a situation where a judge considers that a party who has delayed informing the other party of the need to change expert has done so because they have been expert shopping.’As practitioners will know, the rules governing the use …

Continue reading "Experts: In safe hands"

This post is only available to members.

Bribery Act: Straight talking

John Doherty and Nicole Finlayson review the battle against corruption ‘It is worth remembering that the quantity of prosecutions is not the only benchmark of success. The legacy of the Bribery Act will be measured in terms of its success in changing certain cultures and long-term behaviours.’Bribery and corruption are a scourge on society, threatening …

Continue reading "Bribery Act: Straight talking"

This post is only available to members.

Insights By Penningtons Manches: LiP service? Dealing with litigants in person

Clare Arthurs and Julie Bond provide a timely reminder of the rules relating to litigants in person ‘We can help the court by being realistic: suggesting or agreeing simple measures such as extra directions hearings, by telephone where practical, and asking for the case to be reserved to one judge.’Swingeing cuts to legal aid; vastly …

Continue reading "Insights By Penningtons Manches: LiP service? Dealing with litigants in person"

This post is only available to members.

Limitation: Let sleeping dogs lie

Matthew Collingwood-Cooper examines a recent judgment of note for parties to adjudication ‘Often, after an adjudication neither party will be fully satisfied but generally will tacitly accept the result – as long as the other is willing to do so. However, expecting the parties to formally agree this may be wishful thinking.’On 17 June 2015 …

Continue reading "Limitation: Let sleeping dogs lie"

This post is only available to members.

Anti-Suit Injunctions: Muddying the water

Julianne Hughes-Jennett and Sarah Baddeley look at the implications of Gazprom ‘The Advocate General considered that if West Tankers had been decided under the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the anti-suit injunction would not have been held to be incompatible with that Regulation.’The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has handed down its judgment …

Continue reading "Anti-Suit Injunctions: Muddying the water"

This post is only available to members.

Contract: Beyond reason

Jonathan Elvey and Despina Plomaritu consider the recent decision in Braganza ‘In private contracts, as in public matters, both limbs of Wednesbury should be looked at in assessing the reasonableness of a decision. And on that basis (said the three majority judges), BP had acted unreasonably.’ Contracts often give you free rein to take a …

Continue reading "Contract: Beyond reason"

This post is only available to members.

Jurisdiction: Trust in Fiona Trust?

Davina Given and Ed Holmes report on recent developments in the Court of Appeal ‘Based on detailed analysis of both the terms of business agreement (ToBA) and the framework agreement, the Court of Appeal held that AmTrust had shown… that the arbitration clause in the framework agreement did not extend to matters subject to the …

Continue reading "Jurisdiction: Trust in Fiona Trust?"

This post is only available to members.

Costs: Free time

Sarah Breckenridge analyses the current state of costs management ‘Costs management aims to control and therefore reduce the costs of litigation. But the act of producing, negotiating and allowing judicial scrutiny of budgets can itself be an expensive and time-consuming process.’In May 2015 at the annual Harbour Lecture, Jackson LJ ‘confronted’ costs management with a …

Continue reading "Costs: Free time"

This post is only available to members.