Insights & News
Search for Insights & News
- 237 results found
- All (237)
- Others (180)
- Press (35)
- Inbriefs (14)
- Press Releases (7)
- Case Studies (1)
-
How damages are measured can make a stark difference in claims for breach of a tripartite collateral warranty
06 December 2019The High Court has given one defendant a stark lesson in how the measure of damages can make a significant – and costly – difference to the value of a successful claimant’s remedy.
-
Privilege lost in otherwise protected documents due to inclusion in settlement agreement
04 December 2019In a recent case, the Court of Appeal (“CA”) upheld a ruling that documents which would otherwise have attracted “without prejudice” privilege had lost their privileged status because they had been incorporated into a settlement agreement. The documents were therefore disclosable.
-
Without Prejudice and Without Prejudice Save as to Costs – Reasons to be Careful
21 November 2019The judgment in Sternberg Reed Solicitors v Andrew Paul Harrison [2019] EWHC 2065 (Ch) has put practitioners on notice that mislabelling without prejudice correspondence may have serious implications.
-
Parties making false statements in pre-action witness statements to face proceedings for contempt of court
18 November 2019In a case relating to a package holiday which will serve as a warning to anyone considering fabricating facts to support a letter of claim, the Court of Appeal has ruled that parties making false statements in pre-action witness statements (potentially exposed as being untrue by the witnesses’ own social media posts) can face proceedings for contempt of court.
-
“Once privileged, always privileged”
24 October 2019The Court of Appeal has held that legal advice privilege attaching to communications between a company client and its lawyers survived the dissolution of the company client, even where the Crown had disclaimed its interest in the documents concerned.
-
Lloyd v Google: data breach class actions, have the floodgates opened?
16 October 2019The Court of Appeal has granted permission for a US-style (opt-out) “class action” to be brought on behalf of 4.4 million unidentified iPhone users against Google, to be served out of the jurisdiction. Mr Lloyd’s claim seeks uniform damages for unlawful use of browsing data without proof of damage for each individual. This ground-breaking decision overturns the High Court decision and sets the scene for the first UK class action for misuse of data.
-
Lewis Silkin’s employment litigation team shortlisted for award at Legal Week Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Awards
Press Release
15 October 2019Lewis Silkin is delighted to announce that its market leading employment litigation team led by Toni Lorenzo and Michael Anderson has been shortlisted for Employment, Pensions and Incentives Litigation Team of the Year at the Legal Week Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Awards.
-
Dispute Resolution Update - October 2019
10 October 2019Welcome to our October 2019 Dispute Resolution Update. We’ve included articles on a range of disputes, including summaries of recent cases and guides on key aspects of dispute resolution. With an increasingly globalised and fast changing environment, disputes are an inevitable part of business. Not only can we help resolve disputes once they arise but we also work with our clients to reduce the risk of litigation.
-
Pro-choice? Pro-life? Pro-order and PSPOs
03 October 2019In this article we consider Public Spaces Protection Orders and a recent Court challenge to the making of such an order.
-
New court rules: media claims on the move
01 October 2019From today, 1 October 2019, all High Court claims that include a claim for defamation, misuse of private information, data protection and/or harassment by publication must be issued in the Media and Communications List (“the List”) in the Queen’s Bench Division. A claim that involves the publication or threatened publication of information via the media, online, or the activities of the media may also be issued in the List.
-
Protecting confidential information and IP with search and seizure orders – who inspects seized documents first?
26 September 2019One tool in the armoury of any business that suspects its confidential information has been stolen and/or its intellectual property infringed is the “search and seizure order” (“SSO”) – a court order authorising a claimant’s lawyers to enter an opponent’s premises to search for, copy, remove and detain documents relevant to the alleged wrongdoing. In a joint judgment handed down just before the summer recess, the High Court has clarified the circumstances in which a claimant who is granted an SSO will be allowed to inspect seized material before the defendant does.
-
Law Commission confirms legality of electronic signatures
19 September 2019Following consultation, the Law Commission has published its report on the electronic execution of documents and confirmed that, “An electronic signature is capable in law of being used to execute a document (including a deed) provided that (i) the person signing intends to authenticate the document and (ii) any formalities relating to execution of that document are satisfied.”
-
Employer ordered to disclose privileged material
19 September 2019In a recent decision, an employer was ordered to disclose comments received from its external solicitor in relation to the dismissal of an employee because it had deliberately disclosed other related privileged documents which were helpful to its case. It could not cherry pick which privileged documents to rely on.
-
Misrepresentation: the truth, the half-truth and anything but the truth
19 September 2019When negotiating a deal, counterparties often exchange pre-contract statements and promises. Sometimes those statements and promises turn out to be wrong. Exaggerations, mistaken beliefs, misleading opinions as well as statements made recklessly might result in an aggrieved counterparty seeking redress.
-
Mistakes in contracts – How to assess the parties’ intentions?
18 September 2019The legal remedy of rectification is an equitable remedy that, if granted by the court, may be used to amend a contract that says one thing, but which both parties had intended to say something else – i.e. a common mistake was made. The test to be adopted by the courts in assessing what the parties’ intentions were for the purposes of establishing a common mistake has been unclear and the source of much legal debate for several years. However, the Court of Appeal has now considered the issue and concluded that in certain situations that the correct test is a subjective one.
-
Oliver Fairhurst comments for The Daily Mail and The Mirror: Meghan Markle's favourite make up artist wins legal battle against Aldi
Press
19 August 2019Oliver Fairhurst has commented in articles for The Daily Mail and The Mirror that discuss the news that Meghan Markle's favourite make-up artist Charlotte Tilbury has won a copyright battle after budget supermarket Aldi ripped off her cosmetic kit.
-
Publicity remains the “soul of justice” as Supreme Court rules non-party should be allowed access to court documents
16 August 2019The Supreme Court has found that the courts have inherent jurisdiction under the constitutional principle of open justice to grant public access to documents placed before them or referred to during hearings – but “it is for the person seeking access to explain why he seeks it and how granting him access will advance the open justice principle”.
-
Privilege disapplied: the “iniquity” exception
06 August 2019In an application brought by a hotel portfolio company (in liquidation) for a declaration that it was entitled to disclose a number of documents within its possession, the High Court has considered when the “iniquity” exception will apply to legal professional privilege. So what is the iniquity exception and what does a party need to establish in order to rely on it?
-
Nottingham Forest FC loses High Court claims following club’s sale but plans appeal
06 August 2019The High Court has dismissed claims arising out of the sale of Nottingham Forest Football Club (“the club”) for breaches of indemnities in the share purchase agreement (“the SPA”) and for the alleged misrepresentation of the club’s liabilities.
-
Protecting confidential information – what steps can a company take when information is disclosed to the wrong person?
05 August 2019The High Court has entered judgment in default in favour of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in a claim brought to protect its confidential information and privileged material accidentally emailed by an employee to the wrong person. The Court had previously granted the ASA an interim injunction to prevent disclosure of the information by the recipient, pending a hearing of the claim. This case highlights steps employers can take to protect confidential information in these circumstances.