Related insights: Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Court of Appeal to examine SIPP provider case

22 Oct 2020
In May, we wrote about the High Court judgment in Adams v Options SIPP UK LLP which offered SIPP providers some comfort that, in circumstances where a loss is suffered by a member and the SIPP provider is acting on an execution only basis, they will not usually be liable for any loss suffered by the investor on investments made through the SIPP, including investments introduced to the member by unregulated providers.
Thumbnail

Telecoms case update: EE Limited & Hutchison 3G UK Limited v Duncan & Others

19 Oct 2020
The Lands Tribunal for Scotland recently heard legal arguments in nine applications by EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited (“the operators”) under para 33 of the Electronic Communications Code (Schedule 3A to the Communications Act 2003) (“the Code”). The Tribunal has since issued its decision on the legal issues that were debated at the hearing (EE Limited & Hutchison 3G UK Limited v Duncan & Others). This is the first decision issued by either the Lands Tribunal for Scotland or the Upper Tribunal under paras 33 and 34 of the Code.
Thumbnail

Swift & Carpenter – what does it mean in practice?

16 Oct 2020
The Court of Appeal last week handed down its decision in Swift v Carpenter [2020] EWCA Civ 1295. The issue at stake was the valuing of claims for damages where an injured claimant is obliged to purchase alternative accommodation as a consequence of the injuries suffered. The scope for such an award arises in any claim for long term disability where mobility is affected. Insurers will need to re-assess their approach to such claims and what follows is some practical guidance on the implications of the judgment and we set out the methodology for calculating awards for special accommodation going forwards.
WBD_Services_IP_Tech

Spotlight thrown onto imaging orders – Court of Appeal issues warning shot

08 Oct 2020
With advances in forensic tools, it has become increasingly common for courts to grant imaging orders (in support of search orders) for the quick and comprehensive preservation of electronically stored data on hard drives, laptops, etc. An advantage of imaging orders is that they allow the search process to be far less intrusive and disruptive for the business/premises that are being searched. On the other hand, a disadvantage is that the imaging process does not discriminate between documents that pertain to the issues of the proceedings and are covered by the search orders from documents that are irrelevant and/or privileged.
Thumbnail

FCA test case: disruption in the new normal

15 Sep 2020
The judgment in the FCA test case concerning the operation of several non-damage business interruption insurance clauses has been handed down today. Groups representing policyholders are claiming victory, however, beyond the headlines is a complex and nuanced judgment. Nevertheless some broad themes can be discerned and insurers will want to consider these and re-assess their approach to all business interruption claims and not just those arising from COVID-19.
Thumbnail

SAAMCO is dead – long live SAAMCO!

09 Sep 2020
Litigators have been grappling with the existence and application of the SAAMCO principle in professional negligence cases for over 24 years since Lord Hoffman delivered his leading judgment in the House of Lords[1]. The recent Court of Appeal decision of Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 1151 is the latest higher court authority[2] to confirm that the SAAMCO principle is here to stay.
WBD_Services_IP_Tech

Court tells 'Nosecco' to leave it to the pro's

26 Aug 2020
The association responsible for protecting and promoting the use of the name 'Prosecco' – Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco (the "Consorzio") – has successfully opposed the registration in the UK of a stylised label containing the word NOSECCO (the "Sign") in class 32, for non-alcoholic wines and non-alcoholic sparkling wines.