UK: Top Tens Of 2010 And 2011

Last Updated: 14 February 2011
Article by Tim Hardy, Lindsey Davies, Guy Pendell and Omar Qureshi

We present a round-up of ten of the most significant cases and events in 2010, including the refusal of privilege for in-house lawyers and accountants, a new exception to the without prejudice rule and Lord Justice Jackson's report on costs.

This is followed by a preview of ten cases and events to watch out for in 2011, including the Jivraj appeal on restricting the nationality of arbitrators, a possible end to expert witness immunity and the coming into force of the Bribery Act 2010.


Dallah: Enforcement of an award will be refused where there is no valid arbitration agreement

Springwell : Bank not liable for representations made to sophisticated investor

Akzo Nobel: ECJ rules against widening of legal professional privilege for in-house lawyers

Oceanbulk Shipping: Settlement discussions: admissible if part of factual matrix

Prudential : Legal advice from accountants: no privilege

BSkyB: Unlimited liability for deceitful bid statements

Shah: Banks may have to prove POCA "suspicions" when delaying carrying out instructions

BAE: "Accounting offence" settlement grudgingly allowed by Court

Louis Dreyfus: Court proceedings to secure evidence may not breach an arbitration clause

Lord Justice Jackson: Review of Civil Litigation Costs


Bribery Act 2010 to come into force

Lord Justice Jackson's Costs Review: consultation ends

Expert witness immunity: Supreme Court decision

Jivraj: Supreme Court decision

EU Mediation Directive comes into force

PPI Complaints: Bank's judicial review of FSA rules

Defamation reform

Brussels Regulation reform

EU contract law reform

New ICC rules come into force


Enforcement of an award will be refused where there is no valid arbitration agreement

In Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, the Supreme Court refused to enforce an arbitral award rendered in France where there was no valid arbitration agreement. In doing so, it held that no arbitration agreement existed to which Pakistan was a party and that there were no other grounds for enforcing the award. This case was the first decision by the Supreme Court on the legal framework supporting international arbitration. It demonstrates the extent to which the courts will, for the purposes of enforcement, re-examine awards rendered and, crucially, the need for parties to have agreed to arbitrate disputes. Parties that are entering into transactions that might require enforcement of arbitral awards in England and Wales should think carefully about transactional structure issues. In particular, where a third party is using a special purpose vehicle or equivalent, it will be important to ensure that there is a performance guarantee, or some other mechanism, from the third party containing a separate, valid, arbitration agreement. Read more

Bank not liable for representations made to sophisticated investor

The Court of Appeal considered in Springwell Navigation Corp v JP Morgan Chase Bank the potential liability of banks for, amongst other things, negligent misstatement and misrepresentation. The court concluded that sophisticated investors must take responsibility for their own decisions and indicated that it will be extremely difficult to establish that those selling complex investments owe duties of care to such sophisticated investors. It also suggested that correctly drafted entire agreement clauses will serve to successfully exclude liability for any (non-fraudulent) misrepresentation. The key is to ensure that there are clear contractual provisions in place which include an entire agreement clause and which the investor has clearly read, understood and accepted. Read more

ECJ rules against widening of legal professional privilege for in-house lawyers

In Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v Commission, the ECJ reiterated its previous view first given in the 1982 case of AM&S Europe Limited v European Commission "... that they [in-house lawyers] are not able to ensure a degree of independence comparable to that of an external lawyer". Absent this independence, the ECJ felt unable to extend legal professional privilege to advice given by in-house lawyers. Accordingly, companies should take particular care when dealing with competition law issues. Although communications between a company and its in-house legal team may be protected by LPP where a domestic competition investigation is commenced, those same documents may be subject to seizure by the EC should it commence its own competition investigation. Therefore, where legal advice is sought in relation to competition issues, companies should instruct external counsel at an early stage. Read more

Settlement discussions: admissible if part of factual matrix

The Supreme Court in Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd & Ors created a new exception to without prejudice rule by concluding that without prejudice negotiations that form part of the factual matrix leading to a settlement agreement will be admissible to assist in the interpretation of that settlement agreement. The court considered that, as evidence establishing whether a settlement agreement was reached was admissible, so should evidence be as to the terms of that agreement. The court was also of the view that if the communications would be admissible under ordinary principles of interpretation of contracts (i.e. they formed part of the factual matrix), then the fact that the communications were without prejudice should be no bar to their admissibility. This decision creates consistency when interpreting contacts and avoids the need to apply differing principles in the case of settlement agreements. Read more

Legal advice from accountants: no privilege

In R (on the application of Prudential plc and another) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and others, the Court of Appeal confirmed that legal advice privilege does not apply to any professional other than a qualified lawyer. Accordingly, advice in relation to tax and other matters sought from and given by accountants will not benefit from legal advice privilege and may have to be disclosed. Read more

Unlimited liability for deceitful bid statements

In BSkyB v EDS, one of the largest cases ever to come to trial in the outsourcing and IT services sector, the court found that EDS had deceitfully induced Sky into a £54 million contract for a new customer relationship management system. The contract contained a £30m liability cap, but as the court ruled that EDS had made a fraudulent misrepresentation, damages above the liability cap could be awarded. As a result of this judgment, it is anticipated that UK based suppliers may change the way they pitch their services, to take account of the risk of being held similarly liable. Read more

Banks may have to prove POCA "suspicions" when delaying carrying out instructions

In Jayesh Shah & anor v. HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that a bank which makes an authorised disclosure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, preventing it complying with a customer's payment instruction, may have to prove its suspicions at trial – summary disposal of the question without disclosure and evidence is not appropriate. The bank had argued that no court should ever order disclosure of relevant documents relating to the bank's suspicion in this regard, especially disclosure relating to the bank's report to SOCA. The Court of Appeal said that this amounted to saying the case is "completely unjusticiable" and that the bank must always win. That could not be right; the Court thought the question of what should be disclosed should be decided on its merits at the disclosure stage of the proceedings, not summarily at the start. This decision raises important issues for bank money laundering procedures and should be taken into account when drafting such procedures. Read more

BAE "Accounting offence" settlement grudgingly allowed by Court

In December, BAE Systems Plc was fined £500,000 (plus £225,000 in costs) after pleading guilty under a settlement agreement with the SFO to the offence of failing to keep adequate accounting records. The offence related to the accounting of very substantial commission payments made to an overseas agent for his services in assisting a BAE company to obtain a contract from the Tanzanian Government. The judge was clearly unhappy with the settlement terms agreed by the SFO, but ultimately chose to accept the basis of plea and sentenced BAE accordingly. Read more

Court proceedings to secure evidence may not breach an arbitration clause

In Louis Dreyfus Commodities Kenya Limited v Bolster Shipping Company Limited, the High Court refused an application for an anti-suit injunction to prevent a third party being joined to court proceedings in Mexico. In doing so, the court was careful to examine the nature and purpose of the foreign court proceedings before concluding that they did not amount to a breach of an arbitration clause. This case is a salutary reminder that arbitration clauses are not always "bomb-proof". In certain jurisdictions, a joinder application may be a practical step for securing the provision of evidence by a third party (rather than through the medium of it acting as a witness) and such an application may not breach an arbitration clause. Parties should consider this approach where they require third parties to be bound by the terms of any pending foreign judgment. Read more

Lord Justice Jackson's Review of Civil Litigation Costs

Lord Justice Jackson's Final Report on Civil Litigation Costs was published in January. The Report contained recommendations for, amongst other things, significant reform of the "no win / no fee" costs and insurance system, the introduction of contingency fees and judicial costs management. If implemented, Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations will have a major impact on civil litigation. Read more


Bribery Act 2010 implementation

The Bribery Act 2010, a new comprehensive legislative regime to tackle bribery and corruption, was originally due to be implemented in April 2011, following the expected publication in January of the Government's final guidance on putting in place "adequate procedures" for the purpose of the defence to the corporate offence. This guidance has not yet been published however and as result the Act will not now be implemented in April, instead coming into force three months after the guidance is eventually published. It is hoped that this will take place in 2011.

Please click here for a copy of our guide "The Bribery Act – What You Need to Know" and visit our Anti-corruption Zone for our one-stop shop of useful legal resources, information on training and the latest news on corruption issues.

Consultation on Lord Justice Jackson's Costs Review ends

Following the publication of Lord Justice Jackson's Final Report, the Government issued a consultation on a number of the proposed reforms including the introduction of contingency fees, the abolition of the recoverability of success fees and ATE insurance premiums and changes to the Part 36 regime. The consultation closes on Valentine's Day and the Government is expected to publish its response to the consultation in the Spring. Click here to view the Consultation

Supreme Court decision on Expert Witness immunity

In Jones v Kaney, heard on 11 January, the Supreme Court will decide whether expert witnesses should remain immune from lawsuits brought by dissatisfied litigants. The High Court considered itself bound by previous authority to maintain the immunity of expert witnesses, but Blake J concluded that "there is a substantial likelihood that, on re-examination by a superior court with the power to do so, it will emerge that the public policy justification for the [witness immunity] rule cannot support it." This issue was considered to be so important that the appeal leapfrogged the Court of Appeal and went directly to the Supreme Court. Click here for a copy of the High Court decision

Supreme Court decision on Jivraj

The Supreme Court will hear the appeal in the case of Jivraj v Hashwani. The Court of Appeal found that arbitrators were "employees" for the purposes of anti-discrimination laws and, consequently, that an arbitration agreement, which required the arbitrator to be from a particular religious group, was void in its entirety. This case is of great importance to the international arbitration community, as it creates a risk that English courts may not enforce arbitration agreements that purport to discriminate against arbitrators on any characteristics protected by anti-discrimination legislation, including nationality. It is common commercial practice to agree arbitration clauses that place restrictions on the nationality of arbitrators: this is the case in the Arbitration Rules of the main arbitration institutions such as the ICC and the LCIA, which are both intervening before the Supreme Court. Click here for a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment

EU Mediation Directive comes into force

All Member States, other than Denmark, must bring the Mediation Directive into force by 21 May 2011. The Directive applies to cross-border mediations and aims to ensure, amongst other things, the confidentiality of mediation and the enforceability across the EU of settlement agreements reached as a result of mediation. The Commission is promoting mediation in advance of the deadline and has issued a press release reminding Member States of the benefit of mediation. Click here for more details on the Directive

Bank's judicial review of FSA rules on PPI complaints

The British Bankers Association has launched a judicial review of rules issued by the FSA on the handling of complaints related to payment protection insurance. The new rules, which include the requirement that providers talk potential customers through the key features of a policy rather than assuming they will read relevant documentation, were implemented by the FSA in December. However, the BBA believes that the FSA will, in effect, be applying these rules retrospectively, applying new rules to previous sales of PPI, and is challenging this in relation to this specific case and to prevent a possible precedent being set allowing the retrospective application of rules to all products regulated by the FSA.

Defamation reform

The Ministry of Justice has given a firm commitment to undertake a review of defamation law. Although the Ministry has indicated that the "groundwork" that has been done by the introduction of Lord Lester's Private Members Bill is helpful, it does not intend to adopt the Bill wholesale and has instead set out plans for a consultation, with a draft Defamation Bill due to be published in March 2011.

Brussels Regulation reforms

Following the European Commission's proposal in December 2010 for a new Brussels I Regulation, the reform of the legal matrix applying to courts' jurisdiction and circulation of judgments within the EU is on its way. The most significant aspect of the proposed reforms is the abolition of the "exequatur" procedure, which, if adopted, will allow for the automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments between Member States, thereby reducing cost and administrative burden for those seeking enforcement. The draft amended Regulation also purports to keep arbitration excluded from its scope, but provides a solution to avoid inefficient parallel court proceedings by requiring a court seised of a dispute to stay the proceedings where the question of arbitral jurisdiction is before either the courts of the seat or an arbitral tribunal. The Government is currently consulting on how the UK should approach the reforms. Click here to view the Consultation

EU contract law reform

In July 2010, the European Commission published a Green Paper on the harmonisation of EU contract law. The Commission proposed seven options for such harmonisation, three being voluntary, three being mandatory and another option, which appears to be attracting the most attention, being a hybrid of the two. This option (referred to as "Option 4" or the "28th Regime") would be mandatory in that it would impose a new system of contract law on Member States, but would give individuals and businesses the freedom to decide whether to use it or to let their contracts be governed by purely national rules. Submissions on the Green Paper must be filed with the Commission by the end of January 2011. Click here to view the Green Paper

New ICC rules come into force

The ICC is continuing its review of the ICC Rules of Arbitration, with the new rules expected to come into force in the autumn. The ICC is also likely to remain headquartered in Paris, despite offers from Geneva and Vienna to host the organization, although we understand that no firm decision has yet been reached.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 10/02/2011.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.