United Kingdom: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The Disclosure Review Working Group (DRWG), which is considering the potential simplification of disclosure rules for the Business and Property Courts, has today published a brief update on progress...

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has made it clear that a witness's use of AI to prepare for cross-examination can amount to unlawful witness coaching: R v FGD [2026] EWCA Crim 918.

When a Moscow arbitration threatened to drain assets protected by an English court undertaking, the High Court ordered disclosure of confidential arbitration materials. This November 2025 decision examines when arbitral confidentiality must yield to asset protection, and what it means for parties navigating parallel proceedings across jurisdictions.

The Court of Appeal has partially reversed a High Court decision in a case examining whether a chargee's appointment of administrators was invalid due to improper purpose, specifically where debt acquisition followed a failed takeover bid. The judgment clarifies the boundaries of Braganza-style rationality duties in secured lending enforcement and explores when the equitable 'proper purpose' doctrine may constrain a creditor's right to appoint administrators under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

School holidays following parental separation require careful planning to balance children's needs with practical considerations. This guidance explores how separated parents can navigate holiday arrangements, reduce conflict over special occasions and travel plans, and maintain focus on children's wellbeing throughout the process.

Section 39A of the Arbitration Act 1996, introduced through the 2025 reforms, gives tribunals a potent new mechanism to dismiss claims with no real prospect of success. The promise: quicker, leaner arbitrations. The risks: due-process challenges, enforceability concerns, and tension with stricter institutional rules.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Akbars Restaurant v Secretary of State for the Home Department has significant implications for employers facing illegal working penalties. The decision establishes that civil penalty notices must specify the exact statutory basis for liability rather than simply listing all possible grounds. Immigration practitioners and employers should examine existing penalty notices to determine whether they meet this new standard of specificity.

Legal teams in England and Wales often overlook the strategic value of interlocutory applications during litigation. This practical guide outlines ten essential principles for maximizing the success of interim applications, from thinking like a judge to addressing the CPR's Overriding Objective, while explaining why lawyers should be more proactive in utilizing the full procedural toolkit available under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Gatehouse Chambers' Personal Injury Team has been shortlisted for Personal Injury Set of the Year at the Legal 500 Bar Awards, reflecting the team's continued growth and excellence in advocacy. This newsletter edition features practical guidance on interlocutory applications, analysis of recent Court of Appeal decisions on workplace safety rights and public authority liability, and updates on team appointments and client events.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled on whether sovereign states can invoke immunity to resist enforcement of adverse ICSID arbitration awards in English courts. Spain and Zimbabwe challenged the registration...

The English Court of Appeal has ruled that a state's ratification of the New York Convention does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity in enforcement proceedings. Does this decision create obstacles for investors seeking to enforce arbitral awards against states, and what strategies should parties employ when contracting with state entities?

The Court of Appeal has ruled that ratifying the New York Convention does not waive a state's sovereign immunity in enforcement proceedings, creating a significant distinction from ICSID Convention protections. This decision clarifies the complex interaction between international arbitration treaties and state immunity rules, with important implications for investors seeking to enforce arbitral awards against sovereign states. The judgment contrasts sharply with recent Supreme Court precedent on ICSID award