On 6 December the Council of EU Justice Ministers adopted proposed reforms to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels Regulation). The changes had been proposed by the European Commission in December 2010 (see post) but were significantly revised before being approved by … Read more

It is not uncommon, particularly in a finance context, for an agreement to give a wider choice to some parties than others to decide where disputes will be resolved. For example, an agreement may provide that the courts of a particular country have exclusive jurisdiction, but some of the parties, such as the lender, can … Read more

In ADS Aerospace Limited v EMS Global Tracking Limited [2012] EWHC 2904 (TCC), Mr Justice Akenhead sitting in the Technology and Construction Courtheld that a successful party was not unreasonable to refuse mediation and should not be penalised in costs on that basis. The judge’s approach was similar to the Court of Appeal in Swain Mason v Mills … Read more

In Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court (by a majority of 4 to 1) reversed the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision and held that the English court would not enforce a judgment made by the New York court in insolvency proceedings to which the defendant did not submit. In doing so, the Supreme … Read more

A recent High Court judgment highlights the scope for confusion in applying Part 36 in a case where the formal roles of claimant and defendant do not reflect the reality of who is seeking a (greater) remedy in financial terms: The Procter & Gamble Company v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA and another[2012] EWHC 2839 (Ch). The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is … Read more

The government has given further details of its plans to introduce contingency fees, or “damages based agreements” (DBAs), for civil litigation. It has said that in non-personal injury claims (excluding employment tribunal cases) there will be a 50% cap on the amount of damages that can be taken as a contingency fee (see the new webpage launched … Read more

A recent High Court decision illustrates that a defendant’s offer to settle made outside the Part 36 regime may lead to a similar result as a Part 36 offer, although it will not carry automatic costs consequences: Brit Inns Limited (in liquidation) v BDW Trading Limited [2012] EWHC 2489 (TCC). Claimants on the receiving end of such … Read more

A recent decision illustrates that the court may award indemnity costs to penalise unreasonable behaviour, including an unreasonable failure to accept a settlement offer: Walter Lilly & Company Limited v MacKay [2012] EWHC 1972 (TCC). That includes a Part 36 offer that has been withdrawn so that it does not carry the usual Part 36 costs consequences. … Read more