Latest updates

Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies overlapping policies containing "other insurance clauses"
Dentons
  • Canada
  • 11 June 2019

The Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified its application of the Supreme Court's decision in Family Insurance Corp v Lombard Canada Ltd in instances of overlapping insurance policies with "other insurance clauses" covering the same loss. The court determined that the analysis in instances of overlapping coverage comes down to whether there was overlapping coverage and whether the insurers intended to limit their obligation to contribute, and by what method and in what circumstances, in relation to the insured.

Court of Appeal upholds decision on importance of industry standard documents in conflicting jurisdiction clauses
RPC
  • United Kingdom
  • 11 June 2019

The Court of Appeal recently upheld a High Court decision highlighting the risk that English and Italian courts may reach different decisions on the underlying factual background of related disputes even where the disputes could be said to fall under different agreements. The decision clarifies that the English courts put the certainty of industry standard documentation first when determining the applicable jurisdiction.

Taking charge: Commercial Court delivers judgment on its jurisdiction to grant charging orders
  • British Virgin Islands
  • 11 June 2019

The Commercial Court recently confirmed that the BVI courts have jurisdiction to grant charging orders. Charging orders are a critically important tool, particularly when enforcing foreign judgments, as they allow creditors to take a proprietary interest over assets owned by a debtor and can ultimately facilitate the sale of such assets to allow the creditor to realise their debt.

How are foreign states' decisions on EU directives recognised in English courts?
RPC
  • United Kingdom
  • 04 June 2019

The High Court recently struck out a claim by the beneficial owner of certain notes that had sought a declaration that an event of default had occurred. The case illustrates how administrative decisions in a foreign state in relation to EU directives are recognised in the English courts and the reluctance of courts to make decisions based on the anticipated outcome of foreign proceedings.

Propping up insurable interests
Dentons
  • Canada
  • 04 June 2019

A plaintiff recently claimed indemnification under a residential insurance policy when unknown persons broke into her garage and stole items, including prop guns. Although the court found that the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the prop guns, it found that she was not entitled to be indemnified for their loss because they belonged to another individual who had not been a roomer or boarder.

What happens when an unquantified claim is quantifiable?
Gün + Partners
  • Turkey
  • 04 June 2019

When the new Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 2011, it introduced a new case type to Turkish litigation where plaintiffs file an action for receivables for an unquantified amount that is left to the courts to determine subject to dispute. This innovation in the litigation procedure raises questions regarding the instances in which plaintiffs should be deemed unable to calculate the size of their claims and what the courts should do when the receivables or damages are quantifiable.

Court critical of late subpoenas
RPC
  • Hong Kong
  • 04 June 2019

A High Court judge recently dismissed a party's appeal against a refusal to grant permission to issue subpoenas directed at another party's legal representatives. At the same time, the judge reminded litigants and their legal representatives that subpoenas (directing a witness to attend court to give evidence, produce documents or do both) should be issued in a timely manner, and that late subpoenas which upset the court's case management of trial dates are likely to be frowned upon.

Scope of disclosure orders and contempt of court
  • British Virgin Islands
  • 04 June 2019

A BVI court recently considered a contempt application seeking further disclosure by way of an 'unless' order and whether cross-examination of the respondents should be ordered to determine the issue of contempt. The decision highlights the exceptional nature of cross-examination orders and the high standard of proof required for contempt orders.

Economic duress: when is a threat not an (illegitimate) threat?
RPC
  • United Kingdom
  • 28 May 2019

The Court of Appeal recently examined the circumstances in which a threat not to enter into a contract can amount to economic duress and found that, broadly speaking, it is when pressure is exerted in bad faith. The main thread running through the court's decision is the need for clarity and certainty in contract law, particularly in commercial dealings.

Alberta Court of Appeal confirms directors are personally liable for injuries sustained at work
Dentons
  • Canada
  • 28 May 2019

The Alberta Court of Appeal has revisited the question of directors' personal liability for injuries sustained in a workplace incident. The key question was whether a corporate representative was personally liable for damage resulting from their own tortious conduct while acting as a representative for the corporation. As the applicable tests for determining personal liability remain unclear, this will continue to be a difficult issue for directors to navigate.

Appeal court rules on shareholders' right to file claims against companies, chairs and directors
Farran Law Firm
  • Lebanon
  • 28 May 2019

In a notable decision, the Beirut Appeal Court highlighted the requirements that shareholders must meet in order to submit claims against their company or its chair or directors. In its decision, the court held that while shareholders' personal rights are protected by their ability to challenge their company's management through an individual or company action, their claims should be restricted to damage which they have personally suffered and limited to their participation in the company.

Court of Appeal specifies consequences of rescinding contracts
Luther SA
  • Luxembourg
  • 21 May 2019

The buyer of an apartment signed a long-term lease and agreed to live in the apartment for at least 12 years. However, in contravention of this commitment, the buyer moved out and rented the property to a tenant. The seller sued the buyer, seeking to have the contract rescinded. In its decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that the contract had been divided into a contract of sale and a lease contract, and that the retroactive rescission principle would have a different effect on each of these.

The gagging order and Norwich Pharmacal two step
RPC
  • Hong Kong
  • 21 May 2019

The Norwich Pharmacal order is an important tool for combating fraud. Given the prevalence of electronic and identity fraud, the ability of victims to recover lost money through the civil courts has assumed a high profile of late. For plaintiffs who fall prey to such fraudsters, the ability to obtain a court order prohibiting a defendant from disposing of (among other things) money in a bank account (ie, a Mareva injunction) and to obtain timely disclosure of details of alleged wrongdoing from a defendant's bank (eg, Norwich Pharmacal relief) is often crucial.

Disclosure pilot scheme under spotlight: application and privilege
RPC
  • United Kingdom
  • 21 May 2019

The chancellor of the High Court recently clarified to which cases the disclosure pilot scheme applies. He also provided useful guidance on the extent to which the court should exercise its discretion to inspect allegedly privileged documents under the new regime and emphasised the change in behaviour and culture envisaged under the pilot.

Declaration of Economic Freedom – impact on new and existing litigation
TozziniFreire Advogados
  • Brazil
  • 21 May 2019

The Declaration of Economic Freedom was recently instituted by Presidential Provisional Measure 881/2019. Designed to curtail the state's undue interference in economic activities performed by individuals and companies, the law (which is subject to confirmation by Congress) is also expected to affect new and existing litigation, including the Civil Code. On its face, the Civil Code modification seems positive. However, it is unclear how the courts will react to these novelties.

Jurisdictional challenges to arbitral awards: raise them before they're gone
Dentons
  • Canada
  • 21 May 2019

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently provided a comprehensive judicial review of a jurisdictional challenge to an arbitral award. This decision will be of interest not only to car manufacturers, but also to most parties subject to an arbitration agreement. However, the broader takeaway from this case is that non-compliance with the Arbitration Act is not a ground for review. Therefore, jurisdictional challenges must be brought at the beginning of hearings.

Novel approach to measuring damages resulting from a breach of warranty
RPC
  • United Kingdom
  • 14 May 2019

The accepted approach of diminution in the value of a target company was recently challenged in the High Court of Justice. The case concerned the purchase of shares in a bank that had a $14.5 million exposure to Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. The purchaser sued the seller for damages in that sum, alleging that its failure to provide for the Lehman exposure in the accounts amounted to a breach of warranty.

Attorney general's discretion is not unfettered
Gan Partnership
  • Malaysia
  • 14 May 2019

The attorney general is a public officer who has been given ample discretionary power under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue any criminal proceedings. The question is, where a public officer's decision is subject to judicial review, does this equally apply to the attorney general?

Summary judgment applications: analysing Weir-Jones and its application in BF
Dentons
  • Canada
  • 14 May 2019

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently clarified the test for summary judgment applications. The court noted the rift that has emerged in case law while discussing the standard of proof that is required in a summary judgment application. In particular, it held that the reliance on the conventional trial no longer reflects modern reality and must be readjusted in favour of more proportionate, timely and affordable procedures.

New law protects tenants during eviction procedures
Pérez-Llorca
  • Spain
  • 14 May 2019

The Law on Urgent Measures Relating to Housing and Rental Matters recently entered into force, providing greater protection to tenants. The law has primarily amended the Civil Procedure Act, specifying that matters relating to leases where the claim can be quantified will be excluded from the scope of ordinary proceedings, and that summary proceedings can be initiated for certain amounts in accordance with the corresponding procedural rules.

Current search

Refine search

Type

Work area

Jurisdiction

Firm