Insights

The English Court of Appeal has recently handed down a helpful judgment, clarifying the test for breach of duty in cases of alleged negligence by valuers. In short: (i) the valuation must fall outside a reasonable margin of error of the ‘correct’ valuation; and (ii) the valuer must have carried out the valuation in a way that no reasonably competent valuer could have done (the Bolam test).

On 6 May 2025, the UK government announced it had concluded a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India. A summary of the deal has been published by the Department for Business and Trade. With widespread uncertainty concerning global trade policy and tariffs, the conclusion of the deal is being celebrated as a triumph.

The UK’s new Procurement Act 2023 (the “Act”) took effect on 24 February 2025. More information on this can be found in our alerts: Understanding the UK’s New Procurement Regime in 2025 and Changes to the UK Procurement Regime in 2025: An Introduction to the Debarment List.

The UK’s new Procurement Act 2023 (the “Act”) takes effect from 24 February 2025. Our view is that while there are a small number of important differences, which we discuss below, the majority of the processes outlined in previous legislation, remain unchanged, despite some changes in terminology.

The world has watched in horror as tragedy has unfolded in Israel because of the brutal terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas.  Nothing can compensate for the devastating loss of life, for the trauma suffered by those injured or kidnapped, or for the grief, sorrow, fear, and anger felt by family members.  For the past twenty-five years, American victims or family members have held Iran accountable in U.S. courts for its sponsorship and support of murderous and terrorist acts like those carried out by Hamas in Israel.  The U.S. legal system may again be a vehicle to hold Iran and its proxies to account today.

On 6 September 2023, the Law Commission published its final “Review of the Arbitration Act 1996” (the “Report”). 

In R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, the U.K. Supreme Court has declared litigation funding agreements based on a cut of damages to need to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013, while the Court of Appeal in Evans & O’Higgins v Barclays [2023] EWCA Civ 876 expands the scope of likely competition opt out litigation approval.

Compensation claims for data breaches have become increasingly common in the UK in recent years. However, 2021 may come to be seen as a turning of the tide, as the English Courts made a number of decisions that will substantially reduce the scope of such claims and/or make them less attractive to funders. This alert looks at a few such decisions and their potential consequences.

The last two years have seen three landmark decisions of the UK Supreme Court on arbitration agreements and procedure. This alert summarizes those decisions and their implications.

Compensation claims for data breaches have become increasingly common in the UK, and are often issued in the High Court (Media and Communications List). However, the High Court’s recent judgment in Warren v DSG Retail Ltd [2021] EWHC 2168 (QB) may signal a reversal of that trend. At the very least, unless reversed on appeal, the decision will substantially reduce the scope of many such claims.

On the 28 June 2021, the European Union (EU) adopted two adequacy decisions which permit the free flow of personal data from the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA) to the UK. The adequacy decisions are given under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Law Enforcement Directive (LED), and include the EU’s assessment of the UK’s data protection standards. The decisions are necessary because EU data protection law limits transfers to a third country (the UK became a third country as a result of Brexit), and under the EU – UK Trade Cooperation Agreement the transition period was due to expire on the 30 June 2021.

On 5 February 2021, the U.K. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) does not have the power to compel a foreign company that has no registered office or fixed place of business in the U.K. to produce documents held outside the U.K. under section 2(3) Criminal Justice Act 1987 (CJA). This means that where the parent of a U.K. company is a foreign company which has no presence in the U.K., the SFO will not be able to require it to produce documents held outside the U.K. even if those documents are sought in connection with an investigation relating to its U.K. subsidiary. The decision may act as a brake on the SFO’s powers of investigation at a time when fraud is increasingly cross-border and the alternative routes for gathering evidence are slower and more cumbersome.

Shortly after its important decision on the governing law of arbitration agreements in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 (as covered in our recent alert here), the U.K. Supreme Court has handed down another judgment long awaited by arbitration participants and practitioners – namely, Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48, which is set to become the leading authority on arbitrators’ duties of impartiality and disclosure. 

The London Court of International Arbitration (the LCIA) released an update to its Arbitration Rules, which took effect on October 1, 2020 (the 2020 Rules). While the LCIA has characterised the 2020 Rules as a “light touch”1 update on the 2014 edition of the rules (the 2014 Rules), there are some notable developments which bring the 2020 Rules in line with modern practice and other institutions’ rules.

In a landmark decision set to become the leading authority on the governing law of arbitration agreements, the U.K. Supreme Court recently handed down judgment in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38. The judgment brings some much-needed certainty on how English courts will determine the law applicable to arbitration agreements in future cases. 

Some three years after the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower, the housing industry is finally seeing some substantive indications of the shape of the long-awaited building sector reforms. 

In May 2020, the UK Cabinet Office published a document entitled “Guidance on responsible contractual behaviour in the performance and enforcement of contracts impacted by the COVID-19 emergency.” The Guidance is available here. Its stated purpose is to encourage parties whose contracts have been affected by COVID-19 to act responsibly and fairly, to support the government’s response to COVID-19, and to protect jobs and economy.

In our previous alert An English Law Perspective on COVID-19 and Contractual Disruption concerning force majeure events we noted that “beyond reasonable control” can mean that a business is expected to run itself well. In a recent case,1 the English High Court has issued a timely reminder that parties will not be able to rely upon force majeure clauses if they have not taken reasonable steps to guard against the particular event or circumstance in question.

Business disruptions caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic have demonstrated the importance of including clauses in contracts to appropriately govern the parties’ rights and obligations when such disruptions occur. Even as many U.S. jurisdictions begin the process of loosening the restrictions imposed to stop the spread of the pandemic, it is to be expected that business disruptions will continue. Accordingly, before you enter into any new contracts, you should consider carefully the force majeure and/or hardship clauses you include to address such business disruptions.

Reports are coming in thick and fast that both courts and international arbitrations are adapting to the remote-working climate. This alert gives a synopsis of the proposed burgeoning tools, rules and recommended practices for virtual hearings emerging from the arbitration community, which is becoming increasingly comfortable with video conferencing. It further drills down on the critical issue of award enforcement in light of these developments and the COVID-19 pandemic.