Search results

COVID-19 – Hong Kong Courts set for phased reopening from May

Published on 23 Apr 2020. By Jonathan Crompton, Partner

On 22 April 2020, the Hong Kong Judiciary announced that the general adjourned period ("GAP") for court proceedings, which started on 29 January 2020, will end on 3 May 2020. Stressing that the health and safety of court users, the Judiciary's staff and Judges and Judicial Officers ("JJOs") remains paramount, the Judiciary will move to a phased reintroduction of general business.

A Review in Confidence: Modernising the Law of Breach of Confidence in Singapore

Published on 17 Apr 2020.

The elements for a claim for breach of confidence were trite, having been established more than 50 years ago in the English case of Coco v. AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1) and affirmed in numerous Singapore decisions (2) .

Hong Kong Courts – In with the old and the new technology

Published on 15 Apr 2020. By Antony Sassi, Managing Partner, Asia and Jonathan Crompton, Partner and David Smyth, Senior Consultant

In Re Cyberworks Audio Video Technology Ltd,(1) the High Court of Hong Kong decided that it can, as part of its case management powers and of its own volition, order that a directions hearing take place by means of a telephone conference without the physical presence in court of the parties or their legal representatives.

Hong Kong courts begin use of video conferencing

Published on 15 Apr 2020. By Antony Sassi, Managing Partner, Asia and Carmel Green, Partner

Given the extended general adjourned period (GAP), during which the courts in Hong Kong have been closed except for urgent and essential court business, the judiciary has adopted an incremental approach to the use of technology for remote hearings.

Hong Kong Court of Appeal hears appeal using video conferencing

Published on 15 Apr 2020. By Charles Allen, Partner & Head of Hong Kong office and Carmel Green, Partner

On 2 April 2020 the Chief Judge of the High Court issued a Guidance Note setting out the practice for remote hearings in the Court of First Instance of the High Court (but not the District Court) using the court's existing video conferencing facilities (VCF). Hard on its heels, on 6 April 2020 the Court of Appeal conducted a hearing by VCF in CSFK v. HWH [2020] HKCA 207.

COVID-19: Trials - the show must go on

Published on 09 Apr 2020. By Alexandra Anderson, Partner

Judges are taking to heart the HMCTS's guidance focused on encouraging judges to maximise the use of video and telephone hearings using current technology. So, while the theatres in the UK remain closed, the theatres of justice continue with their activities.

COVID-19 – Hong Kong Courts handling urgent and essential matters

Published on 09 Apr 2020. By Charles Allen, Partner & Head of Hong Kong office

On 8 April 2020, the Hong Kong Judiciary announced that the general adjourned period ("GAP") for court proceedings will continue until at least 3 May 2020. During the GAP, court registries and offices are, for the most part, closed. However, the GAP does not apply to "urgent and essential court hearings and/or matters".

COVID-19: Virtual hearings - what we've learned

Published on 27 Mar 2020. By Dan Wyatt, Partner

Remote court hearings have very quickly become the "new normal". We've taken part in a fair few in recent weeks so wanted to share some practical tips that we hope will help those about to enter the virtual courtroom….

COVID-19 - The official guidance on remote hearings; early engagement is key to success

Published on 24 Mar 2020. By Geraldine Elliott, Partner and David Cran, Partner, Head of IP & Tech

COVID-19. The courts are trying to conduct "business as usual" as much as possible in this challenging climate. The latest official guidance, published on Friday, covers remote hearings in all Civil Courts in England & Wales; it relates to all types of hearings – applications, trials and appeals.

COVID-19: Impact on court hearings and successful virtual mediations

Published on 20 Mar 2020. By David Cran, Partner, Head of IP & Tech and Geraldine Elliott, Partner

As anticipated, the Courts are now moving to a (mainly) remote working basis.

Beware: English jurisdiction clauses do not mean choice of English law

Published on 06 Mar 2020. By Geraldine Elliott, Partner and Fred Kuchlin, Senior Associate

Where parties have agreed in a contract that the English courts will have jurisdiction in the event of a dispute, it does not automatically follow that English law will be the governing law. A party recently found this out, to its cost, when a different governing law clause meant an expired limitation period. This case demonstrates that those entering into contractual agreements should carefully consider a choice of law clause that specifically designates the laws of a country that suits them. GDE LLC v Anglia Autoflow Limited.

High Court: Claimants' litigation funder ordered to provide security for costs

Published on 21 Feb 2020. By Chris Ross, Partner and Gill O'Regan, Senior Associate

The High Court has handed down a significant judgment giving important guidance on the Court’s approach to issues of costs-sharing and security for costs against litigation funders in large multi-party claims. The judgment will be a key touchpoint in this developing area of law. RPC acts for Ingenious in the proceedings. The judgment citation is [2020] EWHC 235 (Ch).

Equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty: a question of loss?

Published on 20 Feb 2020. By Davina Given, Partner

A director who extracted money from a company by way of sham invoices may have a defence to an equitable compensation claim for misappropriation of the company's funds, if the director could have lawfully transferred the funds to the same recipients for no value. The Court of Appeal explored this possibility in Auden McKenzie (Pharma Division) Ltd v Patel

Lenders face more allegations about their actions on restructuring

Published on 14 Feb 2020.

Representatives of a lender on a board will not automatically impose directors' duties on the lender, but they may apply where a director's specific instructions have led directly to a breach of fiduciary duty. The High Court recently explored this issue in an appeal in the case of Standish v Royal Bank of Scotland plc.

Covertly obtained information cannot be deployed until its legitimacy is resolved

Published on 07 Feb 2020.

Bitcoin is 'property' and can therefore be subject of proprietary injunction

Published on 03 Feb 2020. By Christopher Whitehouse, Senior Associate

Following recent case law on the matter, the High Court has found that bitcoin can be 'property' and can therefore be the subject of a proprietary injunction.(1) In reaching its conclusion, the court adopted the detailed analysis of the issue set out in the UK Jurisdictional Task Force's November 2019 Legal Statement on Crypto-Assets and Smart Contracts, thereby providing a far more detailed judicial basis for the finding than found in previous cases. The bitcoins at the heart of this case were part of a ransom payment paid to a hacker who installed malware on a company's IT systems.

Breaking news - dominant purpose test extends to legal advice privilege

Published on 31 Jan 2020. By Davina Given, Partner and Kiran Dhoot, Associate

The Court of Appeal has held that legal advice privilege will apply to communications only if seeking or giving legal advice is their dominant purpose.

Freezing orders: when will past conduct show a real risk of dissipation?

Published on 16 Jan 2020. By Jonathan Cary, Partner

In Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited v Morimoto, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision to discharge a worldwide freezing order. This case provides helpful guidance as to when a respondent's prior conduct may support a finding that a real risk of dissipation exists. WFO; Dissipation; Su.

Guaranteed to fail? Oral funding arrangements may be enforceable

Published on 09 Jan 2020. By Geraldine Elliott, Partner

Funding arrangements should be in writing, or at least impose a primary obligation on the funder to pay. So said the Court of Appeal in exploring whether an oral arrangement to fund a litigant was an unenforceable guarantee or an enforceable agreement to pay in any event (Deepak Abbhi -and- Richard John Slade (t/a Richard Slade and Company)

Duty of care can exist between parent company and third parties affected by subsidiaries' actions

Published on 30 Apr 2019.

Vedanta(1) is one of three similar cases progressing through the English courts concerning jurisdiction, mass tort claims and the potential liability of an English parent company for the actions of its foreign subsidiaries,(2) the others being Unilever and Dutch Shell.

Regulation of cryptocurrency pre-ICO funding under English Law

Published on 15 May 2018.

Launching a cryptocurrency typically involves an initial fundraising process followed by a public sale process, by way of initial coin offering or token sale ("ICO").

Hong Kong regulator warns of cryptocurrency risks

Published on 09 Feb 2018. By Jonathan Cary, Partner

FTT prevents HMRC from having two bites of the cherry!

Published on 22 Oct 2014. By Dan Wyatt, Partner

In Lady Henrietta Pearson v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 890 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) ('FTT') concluded that HMRC had "ignored" its previous decision by seeking to reduce the amount of a VAT refund which it had ordered HMRC make to Lady Henrietta Pearson ('the taxpayer').