< Back to insights hub

Article

Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 4422 September 2020

Share this Page
Share this Page

BITE SIZE KNOW HOW FROM THE ENGLISH COURTS

We appreciate that our clients, partners and friends are currently facing unprecedented challenges as a result of the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Click here for a message from our Managing Partners, and here for all of our latest updates and articles on the subject. If you have any questions or require support, please do not hesitate to speak to your usual contact at WFW.

 

"…it has been the case for many years that pulling rabbits out of a hat is unacceptable and contrary to the overriding objective."Bioconstruct GmbH v Winspear & Anr

Covid-19
In an expedited hearing under the Financial Markets Test Case scheme, the Commercial Court has provided important guidance on the correct construction of various business interruption insurance policies, and whether they provide cover for losses arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic and resulting government restrictions.
The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Limited & Ors

Late amendments
Demonstrating the very heavy burden on parties seeking permission for late amendments to show the amendment is justified, the High Court has refused an application by a claimant to amend their Particulars of Claim after a draft judgment was circulated, rejecting an argument that the new case could only be pleaded after receipt of the draft judgment.
Bioconstruct GmbH v Winspear & Anr

Part 36 offers
Construing a settlement offer as compliant with the requirements of CPR 36, the TCC has nonetheless rejected arguments that in cases where non-compliance with the rules is de minimis, such offers can still be treated as being valid Part 36 offers, or that a party can be estopped from challenging the validity of a non-compliant offer.
Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Limited (No 3)

Privilege
In a noteworthy decision which will be of particular interest to in-house counsel, the Commercial Court has confirmed that legal advice privilege applies to communications with foreign lawyers, whether or not they are in-house lawyers, and the court will not enquire into how the foreign lawyer is regulated, or the standards applicable to the lawyer under their local law.
PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors

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:

Keep in touch