Dispute Resolution

Subscribe to Dispute Resolution RSS Feed

APP fraud – might banks have a “retrieval duty” ?

By Christian Toms on Posted in Banking, Dispute Resolution, Fraud and Financial Crime
Following on from our Blog post and article from November of last year that looked at the potential liabilities of banks and related parties in the context of authorised push payment (“APP”) frauds, the recent decision of Master Brown in CCP Graduate School Ltd v National Westminster Bank PLC & Anor [2024] EWHC 581 (KB) … Continue Reading

Anatomy of a fraud series – Powers afforded by search and imaging orders

By Maria Shorter and Christian Toms on Posted in Dispute Resolution, Fraud and Financial Crime, Investigations
Search orders Search orders are a form of interim, mandatory injunction which require a respondent to allow the applicant’s representatives to enter the respondent’s premises and search for, copy and remove documents or material for the purpose of preserving evidence and/or property which is or may be subject to an action.  Search orders are, therefore, … Continue Reading

Opening salvo – enforceability of litigation funding agreements in a post-PACCAR world?

By Christian Toms on Posted in Contracts and Agreements, Dispute Resolution, Litigation Funding, Regulation
The recent interim judgment of Therium Litigation Funding A IC v Bugsby Property LLC [2023] EWHC 2627 (Comm) appears to give us an early indication of what might become key battlegrounds between Third-Party Funders and certain funded litigants in the wake of the Supreme Court’s impactful determination in R (PACCAR) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] … Continue Reading

Push-ed Back – Supreme Court Considers Quincecare Duty for Authorised Push Payment (“APP”) Fraud Victims

By Chris Webber, Katherine Wakeham and Assad Bishara on Posted in Banking, Dispute Resolution, Fraud and Financial Crime
On 12 July 2023, the Supreme Court delivered its widely anticipated judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC. In doing so, the Court has gone back to basics to explain the basis for and scope of a bank’s duty to its customers, and has brought the Quincecare duty back to a narrower footing. By … Continue Reading

Financial Ombudsman Service compensation limit increased again – by more than 10%

By Chris Webber and Maria Shorter on Posted in Dispute Resolution
ombudsmanThe Financial Conduct Authority confirmed last month that the limit for compensation that can be awarded by the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) will be raised from £375,000 to £415,000, for complaints made after 1 April 2023 relating to acts or omissions on or after 1 April 2019 – an increase of over 10%. A lower … Continue Reading

Public Policy Defence against Foreign Money Judgment Fails

By Natasha Somi on Posted in Dispute Resolution
Earlier this month, in Lenkor Energy Trading Dmcc (“Lenkor“) v Puri (“Mr Puri“) [2020] EWHC 1432 the High Court upheld an order granting summary judgment in favour of Lenkor in relation to a debt owed to it by Mr Puri under a Dubai judgment. Mr Puri’s argument that illegality tainting the underlying transaction made enforcement … Continue Reading

COVID-19 and the Courts

By Chris Webber and Katherine Wakeham on Posted in Dispute Resolution
Whilst we all try to settle in to our new working from home routines, and maintain social distancing measures, the civil justice system is also having to find ways to adapt. Early messages from Court system that it would be ‘business as usual’ quickly proved impossible; but over the past week there have been procedures … Continue Reading

Watch out! Communications referenced/reproduced in settlement agreements might lose without prejudice or litigation privilege from production

By Squire Patton Boggs on Posted in Dispute Resolution
In BGC Brokers LP & others v Tradition (UK) Ltd & others, the Court of Appeal dismissed BGC Brokers LP’s (“Claimant“) appeal against an order allowing inspection by several other defendants of an unredacted settlement agreement between the Claimant and Simon Cuddihy (“Third Defendant“).… Continue Reading

English Court of Appeal judgment recognises the importance of industry standard ISDA Master Agreement terms when challenged by a competing jurisdiction clause in a financing agreement

By Chris Webber and Squire Patton Boggs on Posted in Dispute Resolution, Regulation
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a jurisdiction clause that elects the English courts in an ISDA Master Agreement prevails when the underlying swap transaction forms part of a wider financing arrangement that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Turin courts: BNP Paribas SA v Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani SPA [2019] EWCA Civ 768.… Continue Reading

Courts prepared to scrutinise and limit Norwich Pharmacal Orders

By Squire Patton Boggs on Posted in Dispute Resolution
A Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO“) forces a third party to disclose documents or information to an applicant. These Court orders are typically used to identify a proper defendant to a claim or to get information to enable someone to set out their case in Court documents. The respondent to an NPO application is generally not the defendant to … Continue Reading

No Contractual Duty Owed to Customers by Banks when Conducting FCA Review into IRHPs

By Mariyam Harunah on Posted in Contracts and Agreements, Dispute Resolution
The Court of Appeal in Elite Property Holdings Limited, Decolace Properties Limited v Barclays Bank Plc [2018] EWCA Civ 1688 considered the appellants’ Application for permission to appeal against the Mercantile Court Judge’s decision to strike out part of the Appellants claims against the Respondent Bank. Whilst the application concerned permission to appeal, this was the first occassion on which … Continue Reading

Mastercard, the next instalment. The retailer strikes back

By Squire Patton Boggs on Posted in Banking, Dispute Resolution
The previous four episodes of the Mastercard saga (as detailed in our previous blog posts) focussed on a number of legal battles between Mastercard and both consumers and retailers. These disputes have centred on Mastercard’s alleged “uncompetitive” interchange fees and restrictive rules on cross-border acquiring. The latest claim by retailers follows a class action brought on … Continue Reading
LexBlog