A recent case in the Commercial Court in London saw the successful recipient of a worldwide freezing order (WFO) ordered to provide an asset disclosure when it could not provide fortification for a cross-undertaking. This is the first reported case of an order of this nature under English law.
RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV: a party required to use reasonable endeavours to mitigate a force majeure need not accept non-contractual performance
By Helen Ryan, Trainee Solicitor, Duane Morris LLP
On 15 May 2024, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18.
The appeal centred around the issue of whether a force majeure clause which required the affected party to exercise ‘reasonable endeavors’ to overcome the effects of the relevant event or state of affairs meant that the other contracting party had to accept an offer of non-contractual performance.
Does a limitation clause apply to a claim in debt? A recent English decision
A recent case turned on the question of whether a limitation clause limited liability just for damages or also for debt.
The clause read:
“the total liability of either party shall in respect of all acts, omissions, events and occurrences whether arising out of any tortious act, breach of contract or statutory duty or otherwise arising in any particular Contract Year in no circumstances exceed a sum equal [to zero on the facts]”.
Continue reading “Does a limitation clause apply to a claim in debt? A recent English decision”
English court ordered disclosure – an “information imbalance” not a reason to order the defendant to provide additional disclosure
The English court decision in Alame & Ors v Shell PLC (formerly known as Royal Dutch Shell PLC) & Anor [2024] EWHC 510 (KB), is relevant to the way that the court will approach disclosure in large scale litigation, including class actions and litigation being pursued under a Group Litigation Order.
The case relates to claims for damages arising from pollution in the Niger delta. The claimants had sought wide ranging disclosure arguing that the defendants had all the information on the pollution, while the claimants had very little.
The judge disagreed. He held that the disclosure requests amounted to a classic fishing expedition and that the touchstone for disclosure is that it should be done against the as-pleaded issues in the case. Moreover, an “information imbalance is not a sufficient reason to order disclosure”.
The key paragraphs are worth quoting in full:
23. As the Defendants accept, that does not mean the case is to halt or that there is not substantial disclosure to be made. There is. But it does require me to consider carefully what is relevant and proportionate now, by reference to the case as it currently is, and not as the Claimants would like it to be, or even as it may be in future. An information imbalance is not a sufficient reason to order disclosure, where relevance has not first been established. The observations of Fraser J in ordering specific disclosure of two documents in the Cavallari case are not to be understood as establishing a free-standing right to disclosure where one side has more information than the other. Relevance to pleaded issues must be the touchstone. Two examples from this case serve to demonstrate the difficulty of taking the general approach advocated by Mr Hermer: first, under Nigerian law there is strict liability for pollution arising from equipment failure. For such events, maintenance records will be irrelevant. Next, if, at the PI trial, I come to the same view as Akenhead J did in the Bodo litigation as to the proper meaning and effect of section 11 of the OPA – that there is liability provided negligence is shown – how is disclosure relevant to negligence in respect of third-party interference to be given where the individual events have not been identified?
24. Some of the documents sought may be relevant and (proportionately) disclosable for other reasons, but not on the sole basis that they might have information which might assist the Claimants in identifying which event(s) have caused an individual’s loss. That would be a classic fishing expedition. I repeat that the Claimants have chosen to bring a case based on multiple polluting events of many differing kinds occurring in a wide area over an extended period of time; it is for them to provide the necessary clarity so as to permit disclosure which is properly tethered to the issues. The Defendants are not to be expected to throw open the doors to their archives or to permit a general trawl through their records. The tail must not be allowed to wag the dog.
Court of Appeal rejects challenge to yacht seizure and sanctions designation
The Court of Appeal in London has today handed down judgment in Dalston Projects Limited & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWCA Civ 172.
The decision relates to two appeals:
-
-
- a challenge by a non-designated Russian national to the seizure and freezing of his yacht in London; and
- a challenge to his designation by Eugene Shivdler, originally from the Soviet Union but now a British national.
-
Both had been unsuccessful at first instance and both lost on appeal.
Continue reading “Court of Appeal rejects challenge to yacht seizure and sanctions designation”
Duane Morris Submits Evidence to the House of Lords Special Public Bill Committee on the Bill to Amend the Arbitration Act 1996
On 6 February 2024, Partner, Mark Handley and Associate, Paul-Raphael Shehadeh of the London office submitted written evidence to the House of Lords on the proposed reforms to the Arbitration Act.
The evidence has now been published and is available (here).
The Call of Duty (of Care) – the Potential Ramifications of the Tulip Trading case
The recent case of Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association For BSV & Ors [2022] EWHC 667 (Ch) considered, amongst other things, the potential fiduciary duties owed to crypto owners by developers of crypto software. This judgment originated from an application from the Second to Twelfth, and Fifteenth and Sixteenth Defendants who challenged the jurisdiction of the Court. In this case, it was found that the Defendants did not owe a duty to help the Claimant recover its assets. At first glance, this seems like bad news for victims of crypto fraud. However, if you go beyond the substantive judgment and look at the judge’s obiter comments, the legal developments following the judgment (including the permission to appeal), and the details of the subsequent settlement of the claim, it is arguable that this judgment provides possible scope for an additional strategy for the recovery of crypto assets in the future. Continue reading “The Call of Duty (of Care) – the Potential Ramifications of the Tulip Trading case”
All small claims are equal, but some small claims are more equal than others
By Oliver Kent and Sam Laycock
Disgruntled holidaymakers who have suffered delay at the hands of their airlines are among the potential claimants who may soon find that the familiar phrase, “I’ll see you in court”, doesn’t quite have the same impact it used to. Enter: the ‘Small Claims Paper Determination Pilot’ (“the Pilot”). Introduced under the 143rd Practice Direction Update as PD 51Z1, this update applies to proceedings issued after 1 June 2022 and allows the Courts to determine the outcomes of matters allocated to the small claims track without a hearing (i.e. on paper) and ultimately, without reference to the parties concerned.2
Continue reading “All small claims are equal, but some small claims are more equal than others”
Multiplex v Bathgate: Legal Riddles and Unsolvable Problems
Mr Justice Fraser’s decision in Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd v Bathgate Realisation Civil Engineering Ltd and Others is one of the more curious decisions you will ever read.
Not that I would particularly encourage anyone to read it. The case necessitated some pretty comprehensive and in-depth legal analysis that means the judgment runs to some 206, fairly dense, paragraphs, and an Appendix; I would challenge even the most avid consumer of legal treatises to read the whole thing in one sitting without their eyes glazing over at some point. Helpfully, my colleague Vijay Bange has already produced a very useful summary of the decision and its legal implications here.
However, the density and depth of the judgment does not mean it is without interest; far from it. In fact I suspect this case will prove to be one of the more fascinating legal tangles the Courts will be asked to unravel this year. This article looks at some of the more curious aspects of this dispute, away from the key aspects of the case. Continue reading “Multiplex v Bathgate: Legal Riddles and Unsolvable Problems”
Is Coronavirus The New Asbestos? Steps For Mitigating Litigation Risk
To mitigate the risk of future mass tort litigation, we look at some practical steps which businesses can take before re-opening their doors
By Sharon Caffrey & Alex Geisler
24.04.2020
This is a hypothetical case study. It’s set in the future, and it’s about a Coronavirus mass tort case. Our trial opens like this:
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I represent the family of Mr Smith. The facts of the case are that he died of Covid-19, and that he was in three commercial locations during the infection window. 1) He went to work 2) He stayed at a hotel 3) He shopped in a store, and these are our three Defendants. Mr Smith travelled alone in his car to these locations, and no-one else in his family was sick before he broke home isolation to go to these places. All three of these Defendants reopened for business to make money, and one of them is where Mr Smith was exposed to the deadly virus. These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute.”
Aside from borrowing the cadence from Aaron Sorkin[1], does this sound far-fetched? Well, consider this. Businesses will reopen and people will leave the relative safety of home isolation. Some will get sick, and tragically some will die. The question is not whether there will be litigation, it is what will the ground rules be? So, imagine that you’re a Defendant on this imaginary docket, and ask yourself this, what are my possible defences?
Continue reading “Is Coronavirus The New Asbestos? Steps For Mitigating Litigation Risk”