< Back to insights hub


Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 45 November 2019

Share this Page


The English High Court has confirmed that it has jurisdiction to consider a costs award made consequential on a substantive award appealed under section 69 Arbitration Act 1996. The decision, on which there was apparently a dearth of previous authority, is a useful clarification of the extent of the court’s powers on arbitration appeals.
Martin & Ors v Harris

In what may be the final nail in the coffin for the decision in Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens, the Supreme Court has held that the fraudulent actions of a company’s director and sole shareholder could not be attributed to the company so as to enable a bank to escape liability for breach of its Quincecare duty to use reasonable skill and care when executing a customer’s orders.
Singularis Holdings Ltd (in official liquidation) (a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd

The Supreme Court has also provided reassurance and much needed guidance to liability insurers on their potential costs exposure in its decision that insurers were not liable for non-party costs in relation to group litigation where some of the claims were covered by the relevant policy but others were not.
Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ

Finally, in a useful decision for property owners, the Supreme Court has clarified that a landlord may reasonably refuse consent under a fully qualified leasehold covenant to the doing of something by the tenant which increases the risk of leasehold enfranchisement, even if the lease was granted after the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
Sequent Nominees Ltd (formerly Rotrust Nominees Ltd) v Hautford Ltd (a company registered in the British Virgin Islands)


Should you wish to discuss any of these cases in further detail, please speak with a member of our London dispute resolution team below, or your regular contact at Watson Farley & Williams:

< Back to insights hub

< Back to insights hub