Litigation

December 05 2017
Costanza Mariconda Supreme Court of Cassation issues decision on reasons for appeal under Civil Procedure Code

Italy - Mariconda e Associati Studio Legale

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Cassation consulted its united sections on an important question regarding the specificity of reasons for appeal under Article 342 of the Civil Procedure Code. The question concerned whether the code requires an appellant to specify different content as part of its reason for appeal or provide only a detailed criticism of sections of the appealed decision.

Author: Costanza Mariconda
Read more
Gan Khong Aik Court rules on applicable test in medical negligence suits

Malaysia - Gan Partnership

The Federal Court recently examined whether the Bolam test or the test in the Australian case of Rogers v Whitaker with regard to the standard of care in medical negligence should apply, following conflicting decisions by the Malaysian Court of Appeal and legislative changes in Australia. The Federal Court's decision provides a clearer legal position with regard to the distinction between diagnosis and treatment on the one hand and the duty to advise of risks on the other hand.

Author: Gan Khong Aik
Read more
Bram Woltering Supreme Court sets standards for direct and indirect infringement of Swiss-type claims

Netherlands - AKD NV

The Supreme Court recently rendered a landmark judgment on second medical use claims – more specifically, Swiss-type claims – which have been the subject of significant legal uncertainty throughout Europe. Although the judgment provides welcome clarification on Swiss-type claims with regard to the possibility of indirect infringement and the standards for direct and indirect infringement, some questions still remain.

Authors: Bram Woltering, Peter Claassen
Read more
Davina Given Documents from which legal advice can be inferred – are they privileged?

United Kingdom - RPC

The High Court recently considered the extent to which legal advice privilege could attach to documents which were not communications of legal advice between lawyer and client, but from which privileged legal advice could be inferred, and held that privilege could indeed apply to such documents. The test is whether there is a "definite and reasonable foundation" for such an inference to be made as opposed to material that would merely make the reader speculate what the legal advice was.

Authors: Davina Given, Chris Whitehouse
Read more

Recent updates

Beril Yayla Sapan Constitutional Court rules on annulment request regarding Article 5 of Cheque Law

Turkey - Gün + Partners

Authors: Beril Yayla Sapan, Ezgi Kut
Sarah Shaul Ghosh test overturned: dishonesty according to the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people

United Kingdom - RPC

Authors: Sarah Shaul, Davina Given
Antony Sassi Solicitors owed no duty of care to other party to settlement

Hong Kong - RPC

Authors: Antony Sassi, Sumarsono Darsono
Chrysanthos Christoforou Supreme Court dismisses Marfin's appeal against €100,000 fine from CySec

Cyprus - Elias Neocleous & Co LLC

Author: Chrysanthos Christoforou
Nicolas Contis Supreme Court confirms its restrictive approach to estoppel principle

France - Kalliopé

Author: Nicolas Contis
Stefanie Roose Logistics service providers must be clear on general terms and conditions

Netherlands - AKD NV

Author: Stefanie Roose
Gearóid Carey Assisting lay litigants: recent guidance

Ireland - Matheson

Author: Gearóid Carey
Gary Sollis Requisitioned meeting breaks deadlock

Canada - Dentons

Authors: Gary Sollis, Daniel McElroy

ONLINE MEDIA PARTNERS