Last April, we blogged about the terms of a GLO imposed on the Vedanta litigation after the almighty jurisdiction battle heard by the Supreme Court in early 2019.
2,500 of the claims (those brought by Leigh Day) have now been settled. The terms of settlement have not been made public.
Other claims within the litigation are brought by a separate firm (Hausfeld & Co LLP); we are unaware of the status of those claims, which presumably will continue.
Here are links to a statement by Leigh Day and an article by the BBC concerning the settlement.
Kate Boakes of 12 KBW was instructed by Leigh Day on behalf of the claimants in the litigation.
This blog post by Sam Cuthbert considers, in practical terms, some of the more prominent issues regarding Retained EU Law, Relevant Separate Agreement Law, and their interaction post-Brexit. Together these represent two of the major sources of law governing the UK’s relationship with the EU.
Continue reading “Brexit mini-series: (3) Retained EU Law”
This blog post draws attention to some recent developments concerning the much-vexed Keefe jurisdiction question.
Continue reading “Last gasp CJEU reference for Keefe jurisdiction question”
This blog post is the first in a new series on private international law post-Brexit. We will be drawing our readers’ attention to relevant documents and providing analysis of important developments.
Continue reading “Brexit mini-series: (1) UK government guidance on civil jurisdiction”
When we first started this blog what feels like aeons ago (but which, on checking, was in fact only in 2016), our very first posts formed a short series speculating on the possible impact of Brexit on civil litigation.
Assuming that the Draft EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement will in due course be approved by Parliament, (and barring the emergence of some as yet unknown side-deal on civil jurisdiction) there will be no more need to speculate.
This blog post summarises the position on jurisdiction and applicable law as we understand it for cross-border civil proceedings brought in England and Wales during and after the transition period.
Continue reading “No Brexit deal on civil jurisdiction”
In Nelson v Jet2 Holidays Ltd (Unreported) Manchester County Court, 30 July 2020, the successful Claimant was represented by Aliyah Akram. This case provides an illustration of the lower courts’ approach to the inference of a local standard in cases where expert evidence is given by local lawyers.
Continue reading “When is it acceptable to infer a local standard?”
A couple of weeks ago, we blogged on the first case applying the Brownlie approach to pleading foreign law. These decisions are now coming thick and fast. In this blog post, Sam Cuthbert considers recent developments in this context.
In Suppipaj & Ors v Narongdej & Ors  EWHC 3191 (Comm), Butcher J gave a reserved judgment following a CMC in a case concerning an alleged fraudulent conspiracy. This decision is of particular interest because it considers what a claimant should do in practical terms when a defence raises specific foreign law provisions. It is this aspect of the decision that Sam deals with in this blog post.
Continue reading “Pleading foreign law: the practicalities considered”
The APIL Accidents Abroad Conference, sponsored by 12 King’s Bench Walk, took place on Thursday 3 December 2020. Spencer Turner and Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas run us through the highlights from this year’s event.
Continue reading “APIL Accidents Abroad Conference 2020”
We start the week with a short blog post drawing attention to an interesting recent decision of Soole J in Tate v Allianz Iard SA  EWHC 3227 (QB).
It deals with the position from a “lis pendens” perspective where a claimant, having been compensated for injuries in the courts of France, subsequently brings a claim for “aggravation” of those injuries in England and Wales.
A claim for “aggravation” in this context is similar to – but, crucially, not the same as – a follow-up claim for further damages after an award of provisional damages in English law.
Continue reading “No lis pendens in relation to French injury “aggravation” claim”