Laura Evans has a broad range of experience across the commercial disputes spectrum, including in arbitration, corporate crime and litigation.
Prior to joining RPC in July 2017, Laura trained and practised at international law firm Kirkland & Ellis International LLP between 2013 and 2017, where she represented clients in: (i) bribery and corruption investigations; (ii) institutional and ad hoc arbitrations around the world; (iii) international investment dispute resolution; and (iv) commercial litigation disputes in the UK.
According to the Court of Appeal, giving up a right which a debtor does not even know it has is sufficient consideration for settling a debt. However, the vexed question of what amounts to 'good' consideration remains uncertain enough for those entering into a contract to always consider whether good consideration has been given. Among other things, parties should consider whether good consideration has been provided and, if there is any doubt, pay the contractual counterparty a nominal amount.
Section 14A of the Limitation Act sets out the position on latent damage in negligence claims. Litigation around the application of Section 14A has predominantly centred on when the claimant has the requisite knowledge to bring a claim and if a claim could, and should, have been brought earlier. This has been brought into sharp focus in a recent case relating to a claim brought against the Bank of Scotland.
A master's decision to allow a non-party to proceedings to access a wide range of documents in the proceedings was recently reviewed by the Court of Appeal. As well as providing useful guidance on how the court should deal with applications by non-parties for access to documents, this case is a reminder to parties to proceedings that they should be aware of the potential loss of confidentiality.
In the first contested case of its kind since the Bribery Act 2010 came into force, a company was found guilty under Section 7 of the act for failing to prevent bribery after its defence of having adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery was unsuccessful. Given that there is no one-size-fits-all rule for what constitutes 'adequate procedures', it will be difficult for a company to assess whether it falls on the right side of the line.
The English High Court recently found that service by email of arbitration proceedings was not valid under Section 76 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the correspondence had been directed to the email address of an employee who did not have the authority to accept service. The judge found that in circumstances where service is by way of an individual email address, validity of service depends on the application of agency principles.
The High Court recently considered and applied the principle that the right to waive privilege is not property of a bankrupt which is capable of being vested in the trustee in bankruptcy, thus confirming the Court of Appeal decision in Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd and rejecting the application of the Crescent Farm principle in bankruptcy cases. The decision prevented the trustees in bankruptcy from using potentially privileged documents as evidence to support a claim.