Skip to main content

Technology Disputes

Lewis Silkin works with some of the most dynamic and innovative technology companies in the world.

We have a specialist technology sector group and a wealth of experience in technology disputes (and pre-empting them where possible). We provide down-to-earth, commercial and cost-effective advice to resolve disputes by litigation, arbitration, negotiation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.

Our clients range from entrepreneurs, start-up companies and their financiers and investors, to large multi-nationals and internationally-known technology companies. The disputes we handle cover all areas of expertise in our technology sector group.

 

Related items

Related services

A guide to the litigation process

21 March 2019

If you are involved in a dispute you need to know: what options there are for resolving the dispute; what litigation involves; the steps from the start of proceedings to trial; what parties to proceedings have to do; the fundamentals of court procedure; how to use legal advisers efficiently and cost effectively; and what happens after judgment.

A guide to the litigation process including guidance on the disclosure pilot scheme

21 March 2019

If you are involved in a dispute you need to know: what options there are for resolving the dispute; what litigation involves; the steps from the start of proceedings to trial; what parties to proceedings have to do; the fundamentals of court procedure; how to use legal advisers efficiently and cost effectively; and what happens after judgment.

Court of Appeal maintains interim springboard injunction in team moves case

15 March 2019

Lewis Silkin has been successful in the Court of Appeal in resisting a challenge to the appropriateness of a springboard injunction secured in the High Court late last year. The injunction relates to ongoing legal proceedings concerning a team move and prevents a number of our client Secarma’s former employees and their new employers from competing and otherwise acting unlawfully.

Supreme Court decision on professional negligence and loss of chance: Perry v Raleys Solicitors

21 February 2019

The Supreme Court has upheld the appeal of a firm of solicitors defending a professional negligence claim and helpfully reiterated well-established principles about the approach the court must take when considering the issue of causation in loss of chance cases. The decision clarifies what has to be proved in cases where the question for the court depends on what: (a) the claimant would have done (which the claimant must prove to the usual standard ‘on the balance of probabilities’); compared with (b) what others would have done (which are better assessed on a loss of chance basis).

English courts and overseas defendants: jurisdiction challenges and the “three limb” test

06 February 2019

When a dispute involves a foreign party or events that took place in another jurisdiction, questions often arise as to where the dispute should be determined. The forum in which the dispute is determined can make a great deal of difference. It is therefore important for potential litigants to know where they can commence proceedings and whether they can resist claims brought against them in the “wrong” jurisdiction. In a recent case the English Court of Appeal considered the test that will apply when deciding whether to permit a claimant to sue a “foreign” defendant in this jurisdiction.

Dispute Resolution Update - January 2019

16 January 2019

Welcome to our January 2019 Dispute Resolution Update which brings you news and our views on law and practice for dispute resolution. We’ve included articles on domestic disputes and international disputes, including summaries of recent cases. We have also included client guides on key aspects of dispute resolution.

Court of Appeal finds no litigation privilege in internal emails discussing commercial settlement of dispute

09 January 2019

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by West Ham football club in its application to inspect certain emails sent internally amongst board members of E20 Stadium LLP (“E20”) and between E20’s board members and stakeholders, in respect of which E20 asserted litigation privilege. The emails were created with the dominant purpose of discussing the commercial settlement of E20’s dispute with West Ham over the club’s rights to use the London Olympic Stadium when litigation was in contemplation. The Court held that litigation privilege does not extend to documents concerned with the settlement or avoidance of litigation where the documents neither: (a) seek advice or information for the purpose of conducting litigation; nor (b) reveal the nature of such advice or information.

Back To Top