< Back to insights hub


Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 4927 October 2020

Share this Page


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.

"The crucial question is whether, taking a broad merits-based approach, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court."JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors

The Commercial Court has commented that, in the context of an application to summarily enforce an English arbitration award under section 66 Arbitration Act 1996, the court has jurisdiction to resolve matters which might be raised as a defence to an action on an award.
A v B

Costs budgeting
Confirming that the meaning of a “significant development” which will justify a change to a party’s costs budget has not changed following recent revisions to the rules, the TCC has held that where the number of documents that had been collected by the claimant and required review was four to five times more than anticipated, there had been a significant development which justified increases to the disclosure, witness statement and expert report stages in the budget.
BDW Trading Limited v Lantoom Limited

Interim orders
In a case which the Court of Appeal has said “could not be a clearer example of a wrongful and abusive process”, it has been held that where a party seeks to reopen an interlocutory order on the basis of a material change of circumstances which constitutes a development wholly within that party’s control, that may, in principle, be an abuse of process.
JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors

Rejecting an application to join a third party to proceedings just weeks before the trial of the proceedings was due to commence, the Commercial Court has held that while joinder might reduce the multiplicity of proceedings, considerations of practical ability and fairness were also relevant.
Aegean Baltic Bank SA v Renzlor Shipping Limited & Ors

The Circuit Commercial Court has followed the approach of Lord Denning in The Brede (1974), holding that claims for equitable set off were not “claims by way of set off” pursuant to the Limitation Act 1980.
Clydesdale Financial Services Limited v Nesbit Law Group LLP & Anr

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