‘A judgment made in open court takes effect when it is made and not when it is subsequently sealed. The lapse of time between the making of an order in open court and sealing it may be taken by the unsuccessful party as an opportunity to rehearse legal arguments or to produce new evidence to persuade the court to revisit and amend its order before it is sealed.’
Law Society's Gazette, 18th January 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Whilst Standard Disclosure (under CPR 31) remains in force, the Disclosure Pilot has provided a more flexible menu of disclosure options for the majority of cases in the Business and Property Courts. There is a degree of overlap between CPR 31 and the Pilot Scheme, but there are some significant divergences. One of those is paragraph 18 of the Pilot Scheme, which allows variations of pre-existing orders for Extended Disclosure. The scope of the court’s jurisdiction under paragraph 18 of the Disclosure Pilot was central to this appeal.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th January 2021
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Writing on this blog almost exactly four years ago, David Pliener noted a potentially interesting change in the TCC’s approach to enforcing adjudicators’ decisions. In the case of Ground Developments Ltd v FCC Construction, Fraser J signalled that, perhaps, a claimant applying for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision might not need to meet the summary judgment test after all. Now that Ground Developments has had time to mature, it might be a good time to check in and see how things have gone since. Has Fraser J’s judgment heralded a brave new world?’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th December 2020
‘In the eagerly awaited judgment in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court finally settled an important issue in the law of arbitration that has long divided the authorities and commentary: in the absence of a choice by the parties, where the law applicable to the main contract differs from that of the seat, it is the law of the seat that governs the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. Our Overview on the decision sets out the key holdings; Part I (below) of our commentary on the decision examines the reasoning of the Majority in greater depth.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The High Court has struck out claims brought by more than 200,000 Brazilian claimants in the English courts against British and Australian holding companies in relation to the collapse of the Fundao Dam in Brazil in 2015. In Municipo de Mariana v BHP Group PLC ([2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC)) Turner J found the claims to be an abuse of process and also considered that, in the alternative, the proceedings should be stayed under the Recast Brussels Regulation and on the basis of forum non conveniens. While Turner J emphasised that the factual background of this case was central to his conclusions, his judgment contains a detailed analysis of the relevant caselaw and his consideration of the facts surrounding the claim will no doubt be of interest to parties involved in similar cross-jurisdictional and group actions. Charles Gibson QC led the Counsel team for the Defendants.’
Henderson Chambers, 19th November 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘These proceedings related to an adjudicator’s decision dated 27th April 2020 (“the 27th April Decision”) under the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 as amended (“the Scheme”). Lane End Developments Construction Limited (“Lane End”) was the main contractor on a housing development (“the Development”) and Kingstone Civil Engineering Limited (“Kingstone”) was sub-contracted to carry out enabling works for the Development. On 2nd March 2020, Kingstone issued Interim Payment Application No. 17 in the sum of £356,439.19, but Lane End did not serve a Pay Less Notice nor, until 26th March, did it serve a Payment Notice.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th November 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘The case was concerned with a private prosecution for fraud offences, which had ultimately resulted in a £20 million confiscation order and £17 million compensation orders. The private prosecutor’s unsuccessful submissions against a third party in proceedings to enforce the confiscation order had led to the unusual spectacle of the Lord Chancellor intervening and persuading a High Court judge to reverse her decision on a jurisdictional question and set aside the order she had previously made. It prompted the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) to conduct a comprehensive review of the primary and secondary legislation and the authorities on private prosecutions, confiscation, costs and the sometimes blurred lines between criminal and civil proceedings.’
CrimeCast.Law, 24th November 2020
Source: crimecast.law
‘Can an English family court order the unlawful detention of a Welsh child?’
Transparency Project, 22nd November 2020
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘This paper deals with one of life’s big questions: “why are we here?”, albeit the “here” refers to one or more of the County Court, the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), and sometimes two of them at the same time.’
Falcon Chambers, 2nd November 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Owain Rhys James looks at an inspector’s jurisdiction under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Where the law governing a contract containing an arbitration agreement differs from the law of the nominated “seat” of the arbitration, which law – absent any express choice – governs the arbitration agreement itself? That was the question that the Supreme Court had to grapple with in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, in which judgment was handed down on 9 October 2020. George Spalton and Ian McDonald of 4 New Square consider the decision.’
4 New Square, 14th October 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The Court of Appeal has set out seven lessons for judges and practitioners in cases where urgent applications without notice are made, after concluding that a disabled man had his human rights breached.’
Local Government Lawyer, 29th October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The devolution of legislative and executive powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has now been a feature of the UK constitution for over 20 years. The three devolution settlements establish patterns of governance for the devolved territories which involve a delicate balance between the proper spheres of activity of devolved and UK institutions. Any major reform affecting the powers of one level of government inevitably impacts on the other. As the history of the implementation of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU has demonstrated, failure to consider, from the outset, the impact on devolved government of proposed measures, on the misconceived grounds that those measures only strictly relate to matters reserved to the UK level of government, inevitably leads to unpredicted consequences, legislative complexity and an enhanced level of political controversy.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd October 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘This article considers some of the particular aspects in the recent Supreme Court decision of Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi v OOO Insurance Company Chubb & Others [2020] UKSC 38. In particular it looks at the significance of the distinction between implication of agreement through application of ordinary contractual principles and imputation of terms by the application of conflict of law provisions contained in the Rome I Regulation or as established by the common law.’
Six Pump Court, 20th October 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘Described as “a most unusual case”, the Family Court at the Royal Courts of Justice recently dismissed a forty-one-year-old son’s claim that the “bank of mum and dad” was legally obligated to maintain him. Most court orders for the payment of maintenance of children provide for that obligation to end at the age of 18 or upon the child leaving school. The courts retain jurisdiction to make or vary orders for maintenance of children in limited circumstances, including where there is already a court order in force, to meet expenses in connection with education or training for a trade, profession or vocation, and where the child has expenses attributable to a disability. In FS v RS and JS [2020] EWFC 63, Sir James Munby considered whether the court had jurisdiction in relation to claims under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Children Act 1989 and whether jurisdiction under the inherent jurisdiction could be exercised as the Applicant asserted. This is an overview of Munby J’s remarkable judgment in light of an unprecedented proposition upon the court’s traditionally paternal or parental character.’
Transparency Project, 19th October 2020
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘The central issue on this appeal is how the governing law of an arbitration agreement is to be determined when the law applicable to the contract containing it differs from the law of the “seat” of the arbitration, the place chosen for the arbitration in the arbitration agreement.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Unwired Planet. Its decision has profound implications for patent owners and implementers alike and is likely to lead to heavily contested jurisdictional disputes going forward.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 15th September 2020
Source: competitionbulletin.com
‘The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Unwired Planet. Its decision has profound implications for patent owners and implementers alike and is likely to lead to heavily contested jurisdictional disputes going forward.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 15th September
Source: competitionbulletin.com
‘Long-awaited Supreme Court rulings on mobile phone patents will boost the UK’s position as a forum for resolving global IP licensing disputes, specialist lawyers said today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 26th August 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This appeal discusses whether the English court has the power or jurisdiction, or is it a proper exercise of any such power or jurisdiction without the parties’ agreement:
– to grant an injunction restraining infringement of a UK SEP unless the defendant enters into a global licence under a multinational patent portfolio;
– to determine the rates/terms for such a licence; and
– to declare that such rates/terms are FRAND?’
UKSC Blog, 26th August 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025