In this 20th episode of our series of commercial litigation update podcasts, we look at the High Court's decision dismissing ClientEarth's attempt to bring a derivative action against Shell's directors, the Supreme Court's rather dramatic recent decision on litigation funding agreements, a brief update on a development relating to representative actions, some interesting recent contract law cases, and a Supreme Court judgment which clarifies the extent of a bank's duties in paying out from customer accounts.
This episode is hosted by Maura McIntosh, a professional support consultant in our litigation team, who is joined by Sarah McNally, an insurance disputes partner, and Ceri Morgan, a professional support consultant in our banking litigation team.
Herbert Smith Freehills Podcasts · Commercial Litigation EP20: General update
Our podcast is available on iTunes, Spotify and SoundCloud and can be accessed on all devices. A new episode is released every couple of months. You can subscribe and be notified of all future episodes.
Below you can find links to our blog posts on the developments and cases covered in this podcast.
- High Court confirms refusal of permission for ClientEarth derivative action against Shell directors
- Supreme Court decision today means most existing UK litigation funding agreements likely to be unenforceable
- High Court allows claim in respect of secret commissions to proceed as "opt-out" representative action under CPR 19.6
- Commercial Court finds indemnities covered negligence where no express reference
- Liability caps: importance of clear drafting
- Warranty & Indemnity insurance: claim failed as no breach of warranty established
- Supreme Court clarifies so-called Quincecare duty on financial institutions executing customer payments
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
