Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

Luxembourg and Belgium offer robust legal frameworks for arbitration proceedings, with comprehensive procedures for challenging and enforcing arbitral awards. Legal professionals can leverage detailed insights into post-award proceedings, recognition mechanisms, and remedies available through the courts in both jurisdictions.

The Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addresses an application for provisional measures in patent infringement proceedings involving a European patent related to child safety products. The case involves Cybex GmbH seeking interim relief against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH under the Rules of Procedure governing urgent patent disputes.

Malta's 2026 reforms replace the traditional guardianship framework with a modern system of personal autonomy safeguards and support persons. How does this legislative transformation balance the protection of vulnerable adults with respect for individual autonomy, and what mechanisms ensure that support arrangements remain proportionate to each person's circumstances?

Luxembourg and Belgium offer robust legal frameworks for arbitration proceedings, with comprehensive procedures for challenging and enforcing arbitral awards. Legal professionals can leverage detailed insights into post-award proceedings, recognition mechanisms, and remedies available through the courts in both jurisdictions.

The UPC Court of Appeal has issued its first comprehensive guidance on handling infringement claims based on non-UPC patent designations, establishing a structured framework for exercising extra-territorial jurisdiction. This landmark decision clarifies when the UPC will accept jurisdiction over foreign patent designations and under what conditions it will rule on infringement, with significant implications for patent holders and multinational defendants operating across European borders.

Matheson's quarterly construction bulletin examines recent developments in Ireland's construction and infrastructure sectors, including the introduction of a simplified Building Energy Rating scale, the practical implications of force majeure clauses amid global conflicts, and key court decisions on construction contract amendments.

Evidence of this is readily available in the U.S., where Novo Nordisk is currently facing multiple class action lawsuits from investors alleging disclosure failures relating to GLP-1 products and the weight-loss drug CagriSema.

Ireland's collective litigation landscape is rapidly evolving with new qualified entities joining the register and the country's first representative action proceeding to trial. As third-party litigation funding recommendations loom on the horizon, businesses face an increasingly complex legal environment that demands careful attention to potential exposure and strategic risk assessment.

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is a financial arrangement under which an external investor provides capital to cover the costs of legal proceedings in return for a share of the proceeds if the case succeeds.

The Irish High Court has ruled that shareholders no longer have an automatic right to access a company's privileged legal advice, abolishing the shareholder rule that previously allowed such disclosure. This landmark decision aligns Irish law with recent developments in England, Wales, and Bermuda, fundamentally reshaping the relationship between corporate privilege and shareholder information rights.

The Irish High Court has expanded the scope of Norwich Pharmacal Orders beyond traditional litigation contexts, ruling that RTÉ must disclose unedited undercover footage from nursing homes to support a regulatory investigation. This landmark decision addresses critical questions about when courts can compel third parties to provide information, the boundaries of journalistic material disclosure, and how privacy rights balance against urgent public interest in regulatory enforcement.

The Dutch and American legal systems differ fundamentally in their approach to evidence gathering, with the United States employing an extensive pre-trial discovery process designed to ensure maximum transparency, while the Netherlands relies on a more limited system centered on parties' duty of truthfulness. This comparative analysis explores how these contrasting procedural frameworks shape litigation strategy, witness examination, and the overall conduct of civil proceedings in cross-border disputes.